1977-05-31

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-17, respecting the reorganization of Air Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I began speaking on Bill C-17 on Friday, May 27, and I consider the present opportunity to continue my remarks a privilege. I am pleased to speak this morning, but was not pleased to note the contents of Bill C-17 dealing with the reorganization of Air Canada. The bill would give the cabinet almost total control of Air Canada, and this raises some serious questions. Since many of us doubt this government's capacity to govern, we must ask, what will be the future of Air Canada? One could not ask this question at a more appropriate time, since this year Air Canada celebrates the fortieth year of its founding. Now the government, as precipitate as an unguided missile, wants to remove Air Canada from the control of CNR. It is on a false course. The government says it will rid Air Canada of its debt load; in other words, it is responding to what Air Canada officials have not been saying, that the airline could make a profit if relieved of the burden of debt. But that is the song of many Crown corporations: they say, "We could make a profit if only we could be free of the rules governing private industry". They want the taxpayer to assume their debts, or their interest charges. They say that if only they were relieved of those burdens, they could make a profit. I shall put before the House figures to show that Air Canada is operating at a loss, and at the same time operating under rules and conditions not available to any other private air carrier on this continent.
Bill C-17 is designed to relieve Air Canada of its debt carrying charges and to give the governor in council direct control of the airline. It is the opinion of Air Canada officials that the airline could show a profit if it were relieved of interest charges on debt. This is just another example of a Crown corporation telling Canadians it could compete with private industry if only it were not forced to abide by the rules governing the private sector. In truth, Air Canada has a heavy
debt load for one good reason, gross mismanagement. The former minister of transport, Hon. Jean Marchand, surely must have had Air Canada in mind when he said the Department of Transport was in a mess.
Air Canada has been awarded the most lucrative routes in this country. I am thinking, for example, of the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle. Many members of parliament fly one of these routes almost weekly and they cannot help observing, I suggest, that flights in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle are virtually filled. Yet on those very flights Air Canada managed to lose almost $19 million last year, for some unknown reason. The aircraft were full, but the airline managed to lose money. I say without hesitation that Air Canada robs one of our major private airlines, CP Air, of the opportunity for lucrative runs in this country. Air Canada lost $19 million on the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle. CP Air also lost money in the last two years. But we should note two things. The amount of loss was not nearly as significant as Air Canada's. Also, CP Air has been awarded less lucrative routes in Canada, whereas Air Canada has been awarded more lucrative runs from which it should show a profit, not a loss. It lost more money than CP Air.
Compare Air Canada's performance, Mr. Speaker, with that of any major United States airline. What will you find? You will note that virtually every major United States airline made a profit last year. By contrast, Canada's national airline last year ran up some $20 million of debt; and that debt does not include losses incurred with respect to the operation of our airports. If you add our airport debt to that incurred by Air Canada, lump the two together and call them Canada's national air debt, you will arrive at an astronomical figure. Mirabel alone lost $56 million last year. This country lost $110 million on that abortion at Pickering, on that project which put public money through a paper-shredder. The authorities attempted to build an airport where one should never have been built. Our airports have lost millions of dollars. That raises this question: If the government has not the capacity to run airports, has it the capacity to run an airline?
Bill C-17 would vest control of Air Canada in the government. The intention is to sever the airline from its parent Crown corporation, CNR, and place it under the direct control of the Ministry of Transport. Mr. Speaker, a decade ago this country's Post Office showed a profit. Last year the Post Office spilled public money, running up a deficit of $700 million. If one compares the record of Crown corporations, of government administered businesses, with that of corporations in the private sector, one thing becomes clear: their performance is in no way comparable. In almost all instances Crown

May 31, 1977
Air Canada
corporations have run up losses. They have been an albatross around the neck of the taxpayers.
If a private company loses money for an extended time, it goes out of business or is taken over by a competitor. The Post Office managed to turn its previous profit into a loss last year of $700 million. The question is: Do we want the mentality which runs the Post Office to run the operation of this nation's airline? Is that how we want our airline administered? At present, the prospect of an ugly Post Office strike looms like a shadow over the public. There is also the prospect of a Post Office deficit larger than last year's $700 million. In years to come the Post Office could lose much more money. We have in this country some 1,200 state-owned businesses which cost this country's taxpayers $21 billion. Since our population is around 23 million, it is fairly simple to calculate how much it costs the average Canadian to run these state-owned businesses in Canada.
While Air Canada is a malignant debt on the public, the United States airlines south of the border operate at a profit and with better service. It is also interesting to note that in the United States luggage usually arrives on the same plane as the person. Northwestern Airlines, a privately-owned United States company with a similar amount of capital, a similar number of planes and a similar number of miles flown on routes as Air Canada, earned a profit last year of $100 million. By comparison, Air Canada in that same period showed a net loss of $20 million. As I said before, it is simply an albatross around the neck of the Canadian people.
The big difference between Air Canada and Northwest Airlines in the United States is that Air Canada has almost double the staff. That reflects the crux of the whole issue. When you think of the psychological mentality of the civil servants, or the staff in the Crown corporations, you see that their reward is quite different from that of the private sector. When you work in the public service you are rewarded for dreaming up a new idea. If that idea means that somehow more money can be spent, you are rewarded. That is how you get to go from a clerk 1 to a clerk 2 to clerk 3 to clerk 5. That is the way you go up in the branch from supervisor to director to associate deputy minister and on through the chain of command.
In the private sector, there is a very different kind of reward. In the private sector you must demonstrate some form of efficiency in order to work your way up. So it is that on one hand we have an airline virtually the same size, with the same capital investment, the same number of miles flown, and the same number of planes as Air Canada, with a $100 million profit while the state-owned Air Canada has a $20 million deficit hanging around its neck.
This makes us wonder about the whole question of government getting more and more deeply into the private sector, which Bill C-17 intends to do with Air Canada by putting it under direct control of the cabinet. One truly has to ponder the wisdom of that when you look at the $8 billion committed to

the PetroCan nightmare. Imagine the full intent of the government of Canada running the grease-racks of this nation, intending to be a gasoline jockey. It is another example of an exorbitant imagination run wild with the taxpayers' purse. What they should be doing is giving incentives to the search for new sources of hydrocarbon energy. While that is necessary in this country, they established a company called PetroCan which has the capacity to go all the way to the street level, setting up service stations called PetroCanada.
We now have the potential of government-owned gasoline stations operating the corner gasoline service bars. The simple question is often put: Will gasoline stations now be run like the Post Office? The fundamental question has to be: Does the government, by the very nature of its claim of motivation, have the capacity to be able to operate something in an efficient and jurisprudent manner? When the government thinks up a new airport, it in fact thinks up a new debt. Pickering ran up a $110 million debt and ran it through the paper-shredder. We look at Mirabel and Pickering airports which are, respectively, 88,000 and 18,000 acres of prime agricultural land that have been destroyed in this country. This is simply because of a lack of foresight by those in the transportation department who plan the airport sites. I cannot pass by that comment without mentioning that virtually all across Canada, wherever an airport has been set down it has destroyed large tracts of agricultural land. The airport in Edmonton, Alberta, is built on some of this country's highest quality soil.
As a smaller example, but a very important one, for the satellite airport north of Edmonton, at Villeneuve, there were three sites chosen as being acceptable. They narrowed the three sites down to two. In one of the remaining two they noted that the 4,145 acres recommended for the airport site was on class five and class six soil. I might add that class six soil implies non-improvable, permanent pasture. The other was 45 per cent class one and 50 percent class two soil. In other words the finest classes of soil that we have in this country. The only difference was that one site, the one with the better class soil, was three miles closer to the city. As can be imagined, the Department of Transport, in its wisdom, opted for the site with the highest quality soil, regardless of the fact that Canada today is a net importer of food, coupled with the fact that there are only two sources of food in this world, soil and water. It should be pointed out that today in Canada we are very rapidly destroying our agricultural land. One of the prime sources of that is airport development, industrial development, much of which is linked to transport systems, and certainly airports and airport byways.
The highest growth rate of Air Canada has to be its debt load. If you look at an analysis of the statistics on various bits of information that come out of Air Canada, you will see that nothing in recent years has had a higher percentage increase than the debt and debt interest load of that particular business. We have a bill before the House now asking us to free the debt charges and to put Air Canada under more direct control of the Department of Transport. We have to question very strongly the wisdom of such a move in view of the past record
May 31, 1977

of this government. Almost any Crown corporation we want to examine shows that the net result is a net loss.
If we compare the Crown corporations with the private sector in not only this country but in the United States and other countries where there are industries of comparable size and capital input, we see that in virtually every case the Crown corporation operates at less profit or-and this is so in the majority of cases-at a net loss. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) something in excess of a year ago told the Canadian people that the market place no longer works. I suspect there is probably some degree of truth in that statement because he has interfered with the rules of the marketplace.
When speaking on Bill C-17, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) said that this bill will allow for more direct government control over Air Canada. Naturally we are not going to have the situation where the marketplace is going to work. The government is moving more and more into direct competition, stealing the routes from the private sector such as CP Air.
I heard the voices of the NDP shouting across the chamber a few moments ago when talking about CP Air. It is true that CP Air did operate at a loss. One of the major reasons was that Air Canada stole the most lucrative routes, leaving the shavings for the private sector. That is the major reason we do not have a profitable airline industry in this country such as we see in the United States.
We have to wonder about how the government can run an airline, when we do not even have the respective efficiency coming from the minister. The Minister of Transport did not mind spending $750,000 a year for private jets "Lang Air" tripping across the nation. This is the same minister who wants to run the whole airline, picking up the debt for the airports, for the airplanes, the whole works.
We note the story in the Montreal Gazette that Canadian Pacific may have to sell its air operation. One of the reasons it may have to sell that air operation I have already alluded to, and that is the fact that by the very way in which the Transport Commission in this country establishes air routes it is a known fact to any one who has investigated this situation that CP Air does not operate on the same kind of lucrative routes as Air Canada. If anyone doubts that, I challenge them to travel the triangle from Montreal to Toronto to Ottawa and note that virtually every time you board a plane those planes are running at full capacity.
If any other private sector airline were to operate at such a lucrative capacity in such a lucrative region, they would turn an enormous profit. Yet in that very region just a year ago Air Canada lost $19 million of the taxpayers' money. It goes back to a comparison between Air Canada and Northwest Airlines, two airlines of similar size, and what do we see? On the one hand we see a private sector airline operating at a $100 million profit, and Air Canada operating at a $20 million deficit. That is the kind of difference we have because in Canada the distinguishing fact is that Air Canada has double the staff. That is the nature of the public service. The public service has
Air Canada
a tendency to have a malignant growth upon itself. As a new person develops a new idea, it requires another person to develop the idea, who in turn develops a new idea. The first thing you know, you have a staff out of control. That is true of the whole bureaucracy here in Ottawa; we have witnessed in the past eight to ten years something like a 360 per cent increase in federal government expenditures for the staffing of the public service.
I concede that part of the reason for loss is that we have had some major increases in fuel costs. But that does not take away from the fact that there are airlines companies in the world with the same increases in fuel costs which are operating at a profit. I think what it does point out, however, is that if fuel costs is one of the excuses Air Canada is going to use for its loss situation, then one of the things the government ought to be doing now is coming forward with a program for the discovery of new sources of energy so that we do not have to have the high debt overload on transportation. The other fact that should have been woven into this whole scheme of things is that the government, in its lack of wisdom, chose to toss out support for urban transportation, something that had it gone ahead with in its 1974 election promise to such cities as Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and other major cities, there would have been a great step forward in terms of fuel economy and fuel saving. In the long run, this would have left more hydrocarbon fuel available for those instruments of transportation that in fact require that kind of fuel, such as airlines and so forth.
Air Canada, then, we see, has twice the staff of its counterpart airlines. While we have used the one example of Northwest Airlines, a similar comparison could be made with numerous other airlines throughout the world. I would simply say that if Orville and Wilbur Wright were here, they certainly would be aghast to see what is happening to the airline industry, noticing that it has been requested to go under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport which really, in its lack of wisdom, has not had the capacity to manage anything and show an operational profit.
In conclusion, I think the one thing we can say about Bill C-17 is that its only sure guarantee is that there is going to be an ever-increasing tax burden upon the Canadian public for flight services in this country, because it is not going to be possible to operate an airline to demonstrate efficiency as long as it comes under the direction of governor in council kind of direction, because it will have a lack of direction in its policies, and I think the government is moving in precisely the opposite direction to where it ought to be going. It is diametrically opposed to what it ought to be doing. Air Canada was previously under the jurisdiction of the CNR and, if anything, what it ought to have been told to do was to get even a step further remote from government and to demonstrate it could operate its lines at an efficient cost.
That does not mean, of course, for a single moment, should someone on the other side intend to respond by saying that would mean that certain communities are not serviced, because we know that previously there have been airlines in

May 31, 1977
Air Canada
Canada, not Air Canada, servicing Frobisher Bay and all parts of the Arctic. These have been privately-owned airlines. More recently, while PWA has been taken over by the province of Alberta, the fact remains that that airline operates very much on business principles, is much more remote from government itself and has in fact demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate, that it is an airline which can operate at a profit.
Air Canada, it is now being suggested, should come under the direct thumb of government, and all we are about to witness is a guaranteed loss of taxpayers' funds because the whole modus of government is different from that of the private sector. It is just another example of running at full speed 180 degrees in the opposite direction to what a sensible policy should have been. The government will not, in the years to come, be able to look back and show any kind of benefit at all from this most unfortunate bill which has been placed before the Commons.


Mr. Lang:: You did not read my speech.


Arnold John Malone: I have read your speech, sir. It was tough reading, but 1 got through it. It does not make very much sense. We will let the minister speak now, because he has some challenges he needs to respond to. I shall be pleased to see whether he has the courage to do so.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-17, the Air Canada Act. It is most appropriate that at long last we should have before us a bill dealing specifically with Air Canada, particularly in view of the fact that this, I gather, is the fortieth anniversary of the creation of Air Canada. So it is a sort of birthday present, in a sense, to Air Canada or to the taxpayers of Canada; I am not sure which.
When I had birthdays years ago, before I stopped counting them, there was always a glorious cake with icing and, sometimes, little tokens in the cake. Sometimes you bit your teeth on them, but you hoped to get a token or a trinket. In view of the fact that we are debating this bill today under the rule which restricts the length of speeches and, ironically, at a time when the Transport Committee is on tour in Atlantic Canada dealing particularly with ports in Atlantic Canada, it may not be possible to get far below the frosting on the cake to see what the trinkets and tokens are in the cake until the measure goes to committee.
I understand there is some disposition to move this bill on to committee, and I also understand from my hon. friend from Battle River (Mr. Malone) that the minister earlier, vaguely in public but perhaps more substantively in private, gave some assurances that amendments will be made in committee which hopefully will take care of some of the objections raised to this bill.
Bill C-17 represents really the first fundamental change in the structure of Air Canada since 1937. Perhaps more relevant than this is the fact that the officials of Air Canada have not
appeared before the transportation committee since 1973, which is another reason why this bill should move quickly into committee. Many matters should be ventilated. We are all aware of the recent royal commission on the financial arrangements of Air Canada and the report of Judge Estey, which raises many questions which have to be answered and which this bill fails to answer. In fact, in some areas the bill seems almost to avoid definite recommendations made by Judge Estey.
As many have said, this is the fortieth anniversary of Air Canada, the national flagship of this country. In the past. Air Canada has earned in a most objective way more praise and kudos than any objective observer can claim it earns today. A few years ago, when I was almost knee high to a grasshopper, I heard it said that Trans-Canada Airlines, as it was then, was one of the best airlines in the air but often was the despair of those on the ground in regard to personnel relations and service. For example, it was said you could not get information from the airline, and there were many other areas of customer and personnel discontent. Its safety record has been one of the best in the world. Any debate about Air Canada either in the House or in committee must acknowledge that tremendous credit is due and tribute should be paid to the professionals in Air Canada who have maintained this fantastically high safety record which, as I say, compares most favourably with that of any other airline.
Perhaps one of the dangers I see in the bill is that it almost contradicts some of the recommendations made by Judge Estey to alter the structure of Air Canada so as to make it more independent and more professional. As others have said, rather than make Air Canada more professional this bill potentially could make it more political. I do not think any hon. member would agree that the professionalism of Air Canada should be subordinated to political matters which could affect adversely the enviable record of professionalism which Air Canada has in the air.
1 am not going into some of the topical questions which have to be debated and assessed. I am not going to talk about control of Air Canada, a matter which this House will eventually have to deal with. 1 am talking about the very structure of Air Canada in terms of its management and administration. One can trace on a graph just what happened when the present government changed the administrative structure of Air Canada. Although we were very conscious of the bicultural nature of Canada, almost out of the blue the government decided to appoint not only a chairman of the board but a president-executive officer of the company. Prior thereto one officer, in effect, directed the affairs of Air Canada. Although there must always be ministerial responsibility in terms of definition of national policy, he was the person to whom we looked to run Air Canada, just as we knew who was running Canadian Pacific. Today Air Canada is one of the major corporations in the country.
As I say, only a few years ago Air Canada's structure was changed and two executive offices were created. I would suggest-and I do so objectively-that some of the problems

May 31, 1977

of morale and confusion in transmitting directions to those further down the totem pole can be traced to those appointments, let alone some of the events which occurred afterwards when there was almost a housecleaning among a lot of competent senior officers in Air Canada, in the result, a whole pyramid of vice-presidents of this and vice-presidents of that was created which diluted the central executive command which theretofore had pretty well been under the control of one man who ran a corporation Canadians were proud of.
Looking at Bill C-17, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that we are now compounding the problem. Instead of having just the chairman of the board-whatever his duties will be, frankly, is somewhat vague-and/or the president-executive officer of the company, whatever his duties may be, it is clear from the bill that you are adding a third party, the governor in council, who is really the minister.
You and I, Mr. Speaker, and other members of the chamber are not that far removed from the period when a few years ago the United Nations tried to change its structure. At that time a fellow called Khrushchev came from Moscow, banged his shoe on the table and wanted to create a troika. He thought that was the way the United Nations should be run so as to represent the people of the world. Instead of one executive officer of the United Nations, the secretary-general, he suggested a troika.
I am apprehensive that under this bill, in the absence of any definition or amendment, in effect there will be a troika consisting of the chairman of the board, the president-executive officer, and the minister who could very well give directions as to the day to day operation of the airline. I think that this would be a retrograde step. I do not want to deal in personalities, and the minister has certainly shown expertise in the use of aircraft. However, I do not think there is any member on either side who has the expertise or competence to start meddling, even indirectly, in the day to day operations of the airline.
This underlines what occurred a few years ago when the government appointed the two officers to whom I have referred. Up until that time Air Canada had been headed by one officer. We are now adding a third in the form of the minister. Although three horses draw sleds in the steppes of Russia, I do not think in organizations troikas have ever worked effectively, certainly not in a complex and complicated undertaking like the national airline of Canada. 1 am hoping that either in this debate or in committee the minister will give an indication of the kinds of amendments he intends to move so that my apprehensions about this three-headed monster will be removed. The cabinet, in terms of national policies, directives and roles, obviously has to give direction. Almost in any bill there is power for the governor in council to define national goals to which any Crown corporation should adhere.
In its present form, this bill takes Air Canada away from the umbrella of the railways. It is a healthy step toward giving it some identity of its own in a structural way and in a
Air Canada
legislative way, but I seriously question removing it from the over-all umbrella of Canadian National and its legislation. In effect, it is being set up as a true Crown corporation and you are not giving it the independence and confidence which the Glassco commission recommended. In effect, you are not giving it the independence and the confidence which Judge Estey recently said the board of directors of Air Canada should have. It is being put into cabinet and right on the minister's table. That is a retrograde step which has to be corrected, as far as I am concerned. I mentioned the troika in terms of executive control. It is a fundamental contradiction when you have three people with executive control. Executive control is non-existent in that situation; you have executive confusion or you have executive dilution to the point where there is no direction. Every person in Air Canada, from the lowest generic flight attendant to the top of the totem pole, wants direction from the executive officer and wants a structure which those persons know who are running Air Canada.
I will not continue ad infinitum, because this House will be debating Bill C-33, the bill amending the National Transportation Act, as well as Bill C-43, the bill amending the communications legislation. I will not repeat here what is obviously going to be said ad infinitum at that time. Under the MacLean commission on transportation in 1903, the railway rates commission was established. At that time it said that transportation and the railways were getting a little too complicated and complex. It recommended that railway rates had to be removed from the variable, unstable atmosphere of the politician who comes and goes at election time or in terms of cabinet ministers. At this time that is obvious in the present cabinet, where ministers come and go in terms of cabinet shuffles. In other words, a minister is giving directions on a day to day basis in terms of something as complex as Air Canada; then comes a cabinet shuffle and he changes to another portfolio; his executive assistant changes to another portfolio, and invariably the deputy minister changes after one or two years. That is no way to run a railway or an airline.
Judge Estey said, in more legalistic terms than I am prepared to do, that Air Canada's board of directors is long overdue and it is just a politicial plum handed out to friends of the party in power. This was also said by the Glassco commission. Judge Estey also said that the directors should have their duties defined and should be appointed for fixed terms under statute, so that they could not be removed by an angry government which did not like what they decided. He also said that they should have some prescribed qualifications because it is a very complicated and complex business. One only has to read the stock pages of the newspapers to realize airlines in the private sector, let alone airlines in the public sector, are having to hustle for every client dollar. Yet they do not have effective hustling because their boards of directors are appointed in the same manner as in Sir John A. Macdonald's days. It is just a ministerial or cabinet plum, with no relationship whatsoever to knowledge or expertise in any facet of transportation, let alone any facet of the airline industry. I am not in a position to make many comments about the red chamber, but as far as I am
6094

May 31, 1977
Air Canada
concerned there is no way I want the board of directors to be another form of the Senate under this bill, whereby political considerations outweigh any other consideration in those types of appointments.
The hon. member who just spoke before me mentioned the debt structure of Air Canada which is higher than any other airline. I know the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) will be making a few comments later in the debate about the auditing practices and the financial situation of Air Canada. Through persistent questions of his in this House, the government was forced to appoint a royal commission, the Estey commission, to assess and define some of the financial and audit arrangements of Air Canada.
I do not have to waste time now speaking about the freedom of information and the paradox of Crown corporations being financed by taxpayers' money. A member of parliament has difficulty getting information on any phase of the operation, but any member of the public can get that information at a Canadian Transport Commission hearing. If it had not been for the persistent questioning of a fellow by the name of Andrew Roman at the Canadian Transport Commission hearings on the 1974 annual report of Air Canada, none of us would have known.
The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) put questions on the order paper to find out the breakdown of the $20 million deficit of Air Canada in 1974. He was answered by the minister to the effect that that information could not be disclosed because it had a proprietary interest, and since other airlines did not have to disclose such information this would put Air Canada in an adverse position and poor Air Canada would not be able to compete. That was, in effect, the answer that was given.


An hon. Member:: Shameful!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The words were along those lines, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. As my hon. friend says, that was a shameful answer from the then minister. I am not sure which minister it was because they have been playing musical chairs and ring around the rosey so much. Of course, the next game of musical chairs will occur in July, when this minister will most likely be shunted out. I do not know whether he will be given a wheat bin to sit in, but 1 am prepared to prognosticate that there will be a new minister of transport. 1 have the greatest personal admiration for the present Minister of Transport in terms of ministerial responsibility.
I heard some of the strange announcements by the minister the other day when he was making policy statements in the deep east. This was at a time when a parliamentary committee there was studying transport, when the CTC was studying transport and when the Sullivan commission was studying transport in all of Atlantic Canada. Suddenly out of the blue, like pulling tablets out of the sky, this minister, from on high, makes policy statements which sound fairly interesting until they are really looked at. In terms of information, I cannot see why a member of parliament cannot get what the commission-

ers will tell counsel before the Canadian Transport Commission by putting a proper question on the order paper.
That is how we found out that $19 million of the $20 million Air Canada lost in 1974 was lost between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. One might think that is the most lucrative run in Canada. A further breakdown of the figures showed that on the prairies Air Canada made a profit of $20 million. This examination took place before the Canadian Transport Commission; this knowledge did not become known through answers in this House or before the committee. Even in the Atlantic area, which is supposed to be a depressed area, Air Canada broke even. The $19 million loss occurred right here in the heartland between Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto. Thank goodness we had a persistent counsel before the commission hearings who got that information. That was an insult to parliament. The minister should never have signed the order saying that that information was not to be given to the hon. member for Vegreville.
I know my time is running out quickly because of the rule which shortens the time for speeches in order to expedite the business so that we can get this log jam over with and so that we might have some type of summer recess before different activities begin in the fall. I would like to talk very briefly about Air Canada and Atlantic Canada. Just because we produce sardines in Atlantic Canada, I do not understand why we should be treated like sardines when it comes to Air service. 1 refer to trips from Atlantic Canada to upper Canada and to the west.
1 do not have the figures for this year or last year, but I think it was three years ago in the committee-without divulging cost figures-I was informed by officials of Air Canada that in Atlantic Canada, and I can understand this because of our geographic location, there was a higher density of passengers per air mile than in any other region of Canada because, frankly, more and more people were taking Air Canada. That was the only airline which effectively connected with upper Canada until Eastern Provincial Airlines started to give service into Montreal. However, if you want to go to Toronto, Ottawa or further west, you have to use Air Canada.
I cannot fly from Halifax to upper Canada without being jammed into a DC-9 for almost every flight. They land in Montreal before they get down to day to day operations. I was accusing the minister of perhaps not getting involved in day to day operations. As a member of parliament, 1 do not mind bringing up some of the practical problems which I as a member of the consuming, flying public, as well as thousands of others have experienced.
To me it is a complete paradox that we fly from Halifax in a DC-9 which is jammed tighter than any sardine can from Blacks Harbour. Blacks Harbour is where sardines are canned. People are shovelled and shoe-horned into these DC-9s, and they fly to Montreal, if that is the way they are connecting to another flight westward. They fly to Montreal, but they do not
May 31, 1977

land anywhere close to the terminal. They always land at the international section, gates 48, 49, 50, 51 or 52.


Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan):: Or 56.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I know that the minister from Prince Edward Island has gone through this, as 1 have. To connect to Ottawa you have to trundle off from the international gate-I forget where the numbers start, but it could be anywhere from gate 46 to gate 56-and you get on the conveyor belt and go all the way to gates 1, 2 or 3. It is usually gate 5 or gate 6 where you get the Ottawa flight. I suppose the customers in Montreal find it difficult to walk out to gates 45, 52 or 56. All the passengers coming in with baggage, and all the senior citizens wanting to see upper Canada for the first time to have their eyes opened to the grand vista of upper Canada, get tired by the time they land at the international section of Air Canada and stagger through the treadmill. Usually, the conveyor belt underneath the tarmac is on the blink. That is not Air Canada's fault; the position of the aeroplane is Air Canada's fault.
Five years ago I travelled with the former Lieutenant-Governor of the province of Nova Scotia who had trouble walking because of a leg problem, and he said to me, "Good gracious, Pat; do we from Atlantic Canada always have to be treated as foreigners when we land at one of our own airports?"


Mr. Paproski:: Air Canada doesn't care.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: 1 do not think Air Canada cares. It is ironic that as you stumble off the conveyor belt and go up two flights of stairs to get to the terminal so that you can get back to gate 6, you walk by something called Express Air, and you wonder whether there really is something fast in this system. Express Air travels between Montreal and Toronto on the hour, every hour. You look out and see a DC-9. Anything bigger would not be needed on the hour, every hour after rush hour. Surely it is not that busy. You also see a stretched DC-8 sitting there. I have been on a stretched DC-8 when there have been 10, 20 or 30 passengers, at most, expressing from Montreal to Toronto or from Toronto to Montreal on that fast, vital service. That is one of the reasons $19 million of the $20 million deficit of 1974 was created by Air Canada while other parts of the country did not even receive minimum service. I have a long frame, and sometimes 1 can tuck into a DC-9 seat, but I do not see why we could not have more DC-8s. That would help. More scheduling is also needed.
I must, however, give Air Canada credit because fortunately there is now-at least in the off-season-one regular flight from Ottawa to Halifax, and vice versa. In the summer season there are two flights, and I cannot complain about that. I appreciate it very much and I know other people who fly quite a bit also appreciate it. However, this business of always flying the DC-9 and this problem with regard to the landing positions in Montreal could mean that many passengers will try to avoid Montreal like the plague. These things could be corrected with a few little administrative changes. As I say, just because we produce sardines, Air Canada seems to think we should be treated like sardines and I think that is too bad.
Air Canada
There are many other things that could be said about Air Canada. I could refer to the allocation of routes. Perhaps this bill will have some effect in that regard. The minister is from the west, and he is a man who makes speeches about the west from time to time. I would like to be fair to him, but I would like to have a look at the chronology of the last allocation. I think Senator Marchand was the minister at the time. The last allocation of routes between Air Canada and CP Air was based on one thing in terms of objectives in the communications industry, and that was to make sure CP Air would start to have deficits. There are many things which could be said about that.
I forget the numbers, but what happened to Air Canada when it got the plums is very graphic. CP Air got very few, and even the plums CP Air had were cut into by the alternative routes which were given to Air Canada. This cut into the markets which prior to that had been CP Air markets. I am sure some hon. members of the House will not agree, but I think it was a very progressive step-and I would like to see it extended in Atlantic Canada-when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the minister of transport of those days used some imagination and initiative and extended CP Air into many areas of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue, however, with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will cut through all the other things I could have said. I appreciate the good manners of the House and I will not abuse this privilege. I have not been overly critical or political today. The minister knows that. But I would like to summarize what has happened to Air Canada compared with CP Air. I hope this bill will start to correct the situation. In the most basic human terms, I ask the minister perhaps some day to avoid taking a special plane and to get on the morning plane from Ottawa to Toronto. I am referring to the 7.10 a.m. or 7.20 a.m. flight. If the minister flies Air Canada he will get an expanded continental breakfast. He will get a little more than a soggy, heavy croissant. He will get rice crispies or perhaps cornflakes in a plastic cup, and sometimes there are two or three grapes. You get a little cup of juice and cornflakes with three grapes. What dietetic emancipation and imagination there is in some kitchen, putting in those three grapes! They must have an agreement with Caesar Chavez of California to help the grape industry. That is the only explanation I can find for the addition of those two or three hormones of fruit. You have the small cup of juice juice, cornflakes with the three grapes, and then the stewardess comes by and pours coffee and tea.
I cannot explain the reason for the difference, but when you fly by CP Air on the morning flight at about the same time- and the plane is full as anyone who has taken the flight
80016-45V2

May 31, 1977
Air Canada
knows-you get a full breakfast, as good a breakfast as you would get in any hotel. You get juice, fresh fruit, scrambled eggs, bacon, sausage, and tea or coffee. You have the whole thing.
I should like to conclude with some generalities with which 1 opened my comments. Years ago, and still today, fortunately, Air Canada has been and is recognized as one of the best airlines from the point of view of air safety and air service, but ever since the change took place in the executive command of Air Canada three or four years ago, when they appointed two officers to reflect the bilingual duality of the land, a chairman of the board and an executive officer, the service to people on the ground has deteriorated. I am most apprehensive that when we add the third element, which this bill does, in effect, by giving direct cabinet control in the day to day operations, thus creating a troika, service will go down further.
Let me say, in conclusion, that this would perhaps be a precedent and I do not know how the minister would respond to it-frankly, I do not know whether there is a statutory prohibition-but we just had the Estey royal commission, the report of which was filed when this bill was introduced not too long ago. This bill was given first reading in October, 1976. The taxpayers paid for the royal commission which came up with a very good and objective report. Of course, the written word does convey certain things, but it seems to me that if we are to come up with the best form, organization and structure for Air Canada, perhaps the minister, the House and the committee when it is dealing with the bill should consider seriously calling in Judge Estey. He was a commissioner, now he is a judicial officer. He has made his report, and frankly I think that that study could give us a much better charter for Air Canada than does Bill C-17 at present.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow on the comments of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan). I am sure we will all discover as the day goes on that many maritime members of parliament will want to participate in this debate because of the deep concern they all have over the deteriorating service that is presently made available to people in Atlantic Canada by Air Canada which is the base commercial airline available to our area and, unfortunately, because of government decision, the only airline that is available to our area to move our people between the Atlantic region and the rest of the nation. I have been having a running battle with officials of Air Canada in Altantic Canada over the rotten service-it could not be described in any other way-that is presently available to the patrons of that airline in our part of Canada.
Today, from the closest air terminal to my constituency in Moncton you either have to get up in the middle of the night in order to get to Ottawa or, if you do not take that flight or cannot get on it, you have to wait until the middle of the night again in order to catch another plane that will move you to this part of the country. 1 live some 40 miles from Moncton. The morning flight to Montreal and Ottawa leaves at 7.15 a.m., which means that in Amherst I have to get up at 5.30 in the morning in order to catch the plane. If I do not want to take

that flight, then I have to wait until 7.20 p.m., a full 12 hours, before I can get another flight. If I have to come to Ottawa, I leave Moncton at 7.20 p.m., which is 6.20 p.m. Ottawa time, and I do not arrive in Ottawa until 10.30 p.m. If I am lucky and the connections are as they are supposed to be, I do not get into the kind of mix-up that I seem to experience every time I try to make the connection from Montreal to Ottawa.
It is nothing short of scandalous. It is the worst service that I can recall being made available to our area by Air Canada in any schedule, and especially during the summer months when there is the greatest demand for seats on the airline. I cannot imagine how Air Canada can co-ordinate its present flight schedule with the extra demand from people who want to go to the Maritimes at least in the summer time to enjoy the recreational facilities we have available to all Canadians which are second to none in North America. Yet Air Canada does absolutely nothing to give any kind of service that would assist in any way the tourist industry in our part of Canada which is so vital to our over-all economic prospects for the future.
There seems to be some kind of syndrome in the Air Canada head office which determines that schedules for Atlantic Canada are like the tail on the donkey. You pin it on after you have prepared timetables for everywhere else to everybody else's satisfaction. It is almost like the case of blind-man's-buff. You never know now where the tail will be pinned or what kinds of atrocities they will commit against the travelling public which happens to be located in Atlantic Canada either permanently or as travellers.
I do not understand the philosophy of Air Canada nor the government's philosophy. If we are to assist in overcoming regional economic disparity, then surely we must develop a system which will make it easier for our businessmen to move between Atlantic Canada and the central region of this country as well as other parts of the country. Yet they put every kind of roadblock in our way in getting our businessmen out of the region and other businessmen into the region. Therefore, the degree of frustration toward Air Canada, and indirectly toward the government, that results from this is hard to imagine unless you happen to live in Atlantic Canada and have to put up with the inconveniences that seem almost like a conspiracy against our area so far as air travel is concerned.
A few years ago I attended commission hearings at which Canadian Pacific made an effort to try to secure a line between eastern Toronto and Halifax or Montreal and Halifax to give some competition to Air Canada. Unfortunately, this was denied. I say "unfortunately" because what happened as a result of Canadian Pacific Airlines being denied even one flight into and out of the region was that Air Canada was given virtually a monopoly to do what it wanted, whether we liked it or not. Every time a complaint is made we get a put down from the airlines as a response. In effect, they are saying, "You take what we give you, like it or not. We could not care less, because we are in command. You are going to fly with us or not fly at all."
May 31, 1977

The only half decent service that is available to the Atlantic provinces is provided by Eastern Provincial Airways, but unfortunately the schedules they are forced to use make you feel like a yo-yo: you go up and down all the time. They do not even have time to serve tea or coffee. Direct routing between the Atlantic provinces and Montreal has been denied the airline. At the same time, Air Canada incurs multi-million dollar deficits which it uses as an excuse for not allowing any other airline to compete. So we have to put up with EPA, with its up and down schedule, or with Air Canada that only flies in the middle of the night, between midnight and 7 a.m. or between 7 p.m. and midnight. Nothing happens through the day at all. That is a terrible schedule to inflict upon an area. It makes me wonder what the employees of Air Canada do. In Moncton, for instance, there is nothing to do between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. because there are no flights.
I must say, however, that the Air Canada employees give every assistance with the flights that are available. I have nothing but good to say of my contacts with them. Their public relations are very good because they really have nothing to sell. They have learned how to say no very nicely. I must also give credit to Air Canada for their baggage handling. I have seldom encountered a problem in this respect when travelling with Air Canada, which is amazing when you consider the amount of baggage that is moved. I think they deserve special commendation for the efficient way they do the job.
I must say, however, that it is significant that in Atlantic Canada we are the last to get new planes. I have not seen anything but a DC-9 for so long that I wonder if Air Canada has any other kind of aircraft. Atlantic Canada suffers from the central Canada syndrome that the best must be used between Montreal and Toronto, and nowhere else. The L-1011 was used for a little while in the area, but suddenly it was removed and the DC-9 put back in service. Sometimes 1 wonder that they do not send us back to the Viscount. Everything else in Air Canada's service has gone backwards in our area, so we will probably end up with aircraft that are in mothballs at the moment.
I would like to remind the minister that there is no time like the present to make Canadians feel it is worth-while to be part of this country, but so long as Air Canada provides the kind of service we have at present we will always feel neglected. It is only after everyone else is served that we can hope for improvement. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the air terminal at Charlottetown must be the worst in Canada. For a long time there has been talk of a new terminal, but nothing has happened. It is nothing short of a national scandal that one of our provincial capitals has such a lousy airport. But that is the kind of treatment we have come to expect.
It is hard to believe that the government is serious about ever providing us with something that is comparable to the rest of the country. We face a tourist season, but we still have terrible schedules and a rundown terminal. I would ask the minister to do something to improve conditions and provide us
Air Canada
with a schedule as good as that in any other part of the country. The present one is the worst we have had for 20 years. We are almost back to the days of Lindbergh. It is time the government stepped in and told Air Canada to provide Atlantic Canada with air service comparable to what is available in other parts of the country.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to speeches made in this debate and have read, as well, what my colleagues said in this House. The government is bringing forward a constructive measure, in principle. Many of the things I want to say have already been said by others, perhaps better than I can say them. However, 1 was troubled about the government's delay in bringing this legislation forward.
Now that the Bill C-17 is before the House, neither I nor my party intend to delay passage to committee. It seems to me that Parliament has already wasted a number of years. The former minister of transport who is now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), said in March, 1972 that we needed this legislation. Since then much has happened in the country and to Air Canada, but it is good to see this bill at last dealing with some of the questions which in the opinion of members of parliament ought to be dealt with. The need to deal with them has been apparent for a number of years.
When 1 first read the bill I was impressed with it and thought that it incorporated many of Chief Justice Estey's recommendations. But the number of references to the governor in council concerned me. It seemed to me that the bill would give the minister power to wield an inordinate amount of control, perhaps at the expense of the airline's management. I was reassured to hear the minister say that at some later stage, as a result of discussions, amendments will be introduced which will qualify the text of the bill as it now reads. He was speaking of that part of the bill providing for the giving of directions. According to the minister, as he is reported in Hansard, the directions to be given by the governor in council will be directions of a general nature. He went on to say that it is not the intention or purpose of the government to give direction in relation to the day to day operation of the airline. If the minister meant what he said and his words can be translated into proper amendments in committee, many of the concerns of members of parliament on this point, particularly in my party, will be laid to rest.
In the past, Air Canada has been one of our better Crown corporations. Only in the fairly recent past, when people with non-airline or non-transport experience were appointed to senior positions in the airline, have some of the airline's difficulties become apparent. Many of those difficulties are now in the process of being eliminated. As my colleague from Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) noted, no corporation, Crown or otherwise, has a more dedicated and capable work force than Air Canada. Given good, sound financial direction and a minimum of government interference, I think Air Canada can again reach the heights of efficiency and

May 31, 1977
Air Canada
goodwill it enjoyed a few years ago. In my opinion, it is on its way to regaining its former position.
Many constructive suggestions have been conveyed to the minister by Air Canada, members of parliament, and 1 hope from other sources. I should like to deal positively now, with some points which I am sure the minister has heard before. Nevertheless, I think they should be put on record. Also, since I will not neglect the negative side of the bill in my remarks, I shall make some suggestions for improvement. I shall also deal with one activity in which Air Canada has participated and for which it ought to be condemned. I refer to the company's involvement with the de-icing facilities at Mirabel. I shall come to that later.
The minister said in his speech last week, as reported in Hansard, that he feels it is his responsibility to achieve the maximum possible efficiency in all aspects of the airline's operation. I think the minister would also agree that if possible Air Canada's profitability ought to be kept in the forefront. The airline has always striven to make a profit if that was possible. Only in recent years has it begun to show an alarming pattern of operating deficits. Personally, I should like to see an express provision in the bill saying that the government intends Air Canada to be profitable. That would be consistent with the minister's statements and would be valuable in boosting employee morale.
Such a provision would also give potential investors the confidence of knowing the company is commercially oriented. This point is important, since this bill deals with changes to the company's capital structure. I should like to see some language inserted, perhaps in the preamble or in clause 6, in that clause under the title "Capacities and activities of the corporation", spelling out tersely but explicitly some definite commitment for making the airline a profitable operation.
It is obvious, from a reading of the bill, that the airline may engage in a number of activities which are over and above its paramount purpose. I think some definitions in this respect could be improved in committee. Those activities not listed by implication are prohibited. Perhaps we should examine the legislation carefully and see if we cannot indicate with more precision exactly what Air Canada can and should do. I do not think for example, we should give it carte blanche to do anything it wants or compete unfairly with other like enterprises in the private sector.
I mentioned earlier the matter of directions. The bill says that the corporation shall comply with direction given to it in writing by the governor in council. Such directions are unqualified. Since the minister mentioned them in his speech, I think one can assume he is well aware that, taken literally, such language would enable the government to interfere in the day to day operations of Air Canada. I understand the Air Canada management thinks the government ought to confine itself to policy direction. Obviously, Chief Justice Estey had this in mind when he raised the point in his report, and 1 agree.
I now raise the question of Air Canada service. Obviously, for various reasons in the past Air Canada has been directed to provide service on routes which no private airline could have

flown profitably. Clearly, clause 9 empowers the government to compensate Air Canada for losses arising from the provision of that type of uneconomic service. I believe the committee should consider making such compensation mandatory. Such language should be spelled out in the act clearly, in order to show management, the public and employees of Air Canada that the airline shall not suffer financially as a result of such direction to provide unprofitable services to remote areas domestically or internationally.
I also believe that the method of calculating such losses ought to be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Some procedures should be spelled out, so that the department itself will not have power to say how large the losses are. If there is any dispute, the matter ought to go to some sort of arbitration procedure.
We are now considering a different type of capital debt structure for the company. In order to ensure that Air Canada can market its future securities at the lowest possible rate of interest, in order to attract potential investors and encourage investment, I suggest the bill should be amended to make Air Canada securities a legal and eligible investment from any point of view. Certain Canadian companies such as insurance and trust companies may not, under the legislation governing them, invest their funds in the securities of another company unless the latter meets certain tests specified in the governing legislation qualifying it as a "legal for life" investment. That is a term in use in the investment world. It seems to me that the committee ought to consider this point when considering.
The borrowing power of Air Canada is covered in clause 15 of this bill. This power becomes immensely important when you consider that only a few years ago, at the end of the war, you could buy a pretty good aircraft for passenger service for around $1 million. Today's wide-bodied jets cost $30 million or $40 million together with spare parts. The financing of these very important and necessary showcases of Air Canada's fleet is a major undertaking and it is much more complicated than it used to be.
The bill provides that the approval of the Minister of Finance must be obtained before the corporation can borrow any money. This is not entirely necessary nor desirable from Air Canada's point of view. It extends the government's control too far into the day to day operations of the airline and its management. In other words, the corporation's financial plans, including the need to raise funds externally, would be apparent in its annual budget which requires approval by order in council on the joint recommendation of the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Finance, and the President of Treasury Board. If the budget and resulting external financing requirements are approved, further government approvals related to implementing such plans introduce what any company would believe to be overcontrol by the government, detrimental to the effective and efficient implementation of approved plans by the management.
May 31, 1977

Approval of long-term financing action is a normal prerogative of a corporation's board of directors. It should not be through unnecessary, complicated scrutiny by people who in the normal course of events would not find it necessary to do this with other corporations of Air Canada's stature, as is the case with our national air carrier. The need for government approval of post-budget action and decisions covering unspecified terms would adversely affect the company's flexibility. I hope the minister will be receptive to taking a look at this in committee as well.
There have been a lot of problems in the past with Air Canada's auditing. Without opening old wounds, it is only necessary to remind the House that these complications arose because of arbitrary action taken by the government which did not meet good business principles and were not satisfactory under the circumstances. This bill which indicates that auditors will be appointed annually by the governor in council should be modified so that management of the corporation will be consulted. There was a totally unnecessary occasion of embarrassment to the airline in the past when we had the ridiculous situation of three sets of auditors-one going, one coming, and one in the process of leaving. We do not want to get into that sort of era again.
The bill requires an audit to be done of the accounts and financial transactions of the corporation and requires that the auditors report on same to the minister. As is the case in the private sector and under general corporate law, the board of directors of Air Canada should be entitled to an audit report on the company's financial statements and affairs before it approves the accounts and financial transactions for the fiscal year. Again, there ought to be more consultation and more options available to management. Just because Air Canada is a Crown corporation is no reason why it should be penalized through the extent of having excessive control exerted over it. On its record, it deserves far more trust and confidence than, for example, AECL. That should be kept in mind.
Clause 18 provides that the governor in council may request reports of any kind at any time as it deems appropriate from the corporation, and the corporation shall comply with any such request. I would suggest that Air Canada must take a pretty dim view of any such proposal. It is unnecessary and could tend to abuse.
Members of parliament must ensure that this airline is not converted, either advertently or inadvertently, into some sort of government agency rather than a normal commercial enterprise under the broad direction of government. Air Canada, on its record, has been one of the great airlines of the world. It is only in recent years, as mentioned before, that it has run into any difficulty. Something we must be careful about in trying to give Air Canada the type of flexibility and capacity it requires is that we do not allow civil servants, who to some extent are going to follow their natural tendencies, to try to exert a type of control that is going to take away from Air Canada's ordinary initiatives.
I would like to talk about the board of directors of Air Canada for a moment. Rather than having the civil servants
Air Canada
lurking in the background, if it is deemed desirable it would be better to have one or two on the board of directors where they can speak out freely and their actions can be assessed and judged-take away that anonymity.
In considering the qualifications of the board of directors it would be very desirable that they have some expertise in transport-related matters or in business. As far as possible, they should be representative of certain areas of the country. When Air Canada is considering factors that are regional, these people can speak with some knowledge and authority of the situation. They will not simply be holding seats based on political or other prerogatives that have earned their being appointed to the position. The minister will be aware of this, and I am sure he will try earnestly to keep this from happening so that Air Canada's board of directors are not redundant or merely holding down their positions because they have earned them in some way that is not related to the type of expertise they are expected to provide.
As an example of something that Air Canada and Transport have collaborated on recently and completely messed up, to show the other side of some of Air Canada's activities, 1 want to talk very briefly about the de-icing facility at Mirabel. This has interested me for some time and the minister and I have had some correspondence about it. The taxpayers of Canada are now the proud owners of a de-icing facility, through the Department of Transport. It cost the taxpayers a lot of money, between $7 million and $10 million, and that may be a low estimate.
Initially, as I understand it, Air Canada decided that it wanted to control this de-icing facility. They felt it would be in the company's best interest to do so. In 1973 the company suddenly came to the realization that it lacked the money and expertise to accomplish this. Transport decided it should step in and provide some assistance. Also, there were people in the private sector who showed an interest in this particular facility, which made Air Canada uneasy.
Air Canada first decided that they wanted it. Second, they felt they could not handle it. They then did an about-face and decided that they, together with people from Transport, would design this de-icing facility at Mirabel. From that point on, things went from bad to worse. Millions of dollars were spent. Committees were formed, at the initiative of Transport and Air Canada, which involved at various times representatives of major air carriers, ATAC, and so on. Proposals were invited and cancelled; tenders were called and cancelled in an irregular way.
This House will recall that questions were asked last year about some of the circumstances under which a de-icing facility, and for some unknown reason the tenders were cancelled at the last moment without proper notice. Allegedly, a telex was sent, but to this date it has never been found. In any event, the first winter's operation was a disaster. The facility was shut down in December and remained closed until well into the new year.

May 31, 1977
Air Canada
On some occasions there were delays due to de-icing for as long as five hours, causing all sorts of complications to major air carriers, and to passengers. KLM had occasion to complain, as did CP. As I understand it, some of the correspondence the minister has probably seen is so hot that it virtually singes the paper, as the airlines detailed some of the incompetence and some of the complications occasioned by this not so fortuitous blending of Air Canada and the Department of Transport.
On May 26 of this year, for example, in an effort to deal with this continuing problem resulting from Air Canada's refusal to permit anyone else but themselves to participate in this de-icing project, and the failure to call tenders, Transport asked the current ATAC committee, which is the second one which has been formed, if they would like to have representatives from IATA attend the meeting, and if my information is correct they were told they did not want representatives of IATA to watch them wash their linen in front of the world in trying to come to some sort of reasonable conclusion to get out of this demonstrable fiasco.
I have mentioned this rather detailed example to illustrate that if Air Canada is to be given increasing authority-and I, for one, feel that they should be given that authority and flexibility-they must not use this increased flexibility and authority to get into areas where they either lack the capacity or other means to compete and do a good job. At the same time, it must be made clear to Air Canada that as a Crown corporation, while they should have every occasion to do those things which facilitate their main object, that is to say, transporting people and participating in enterprises related to transportation, they should not necessarily be allowed to get too far afield, because I think it is pretty clear that even the most efficient Crown corporation has yet to demonstrate that it is a match for a well-managed private corporation which has to sink or swim on its own merits. It should be noted in this connection that the private sector corporations are in a far better position to make a contribution back to the economy in terms of tax dollars, and so on.
1 want to make my feelings clear. Air Canada, despite the increased powers contemplated under the bill, should be watched closely to make certain that it does not expand too rapidly, and in areas such as de-icing where so far it has shown itself to be unqualified to do the job which some other company, maybe General Aviation, maybe some other private company, could have done better. Coming back to the de-icing operation for a moment, I hope the minister will consult with his colleagues in Treasury Board bearing in mind that, as 1 understand the situation, it is government policy that, publicly-owned facilities such as this unit at Mirabel should in every possible sense be open to public tender. This is the only way in which taxpayers are going to be able to decide whether this very expensive de-icing capability which has been bought with their money is a success and can be operated, or whether in the final analysis cement must be poured over it and a new start made.
Coming back to the question of the employees of Air Canada and the labour difficulties which have plagued this company, I should like to see the minister consider whether or not in the process of the capital restructuring of this company it might not be feasible to make provision for some of the employees of Air Canada, and there are many thousands of them, who would wish to invest in their company, to do so. It would be very interesting to see what sort of response the government would get to this type of initiative.
I also think that, just as in the case of civil servants having some legitimate function to perform, it should be out in the open where people can assess their decisions and input, as has been mentioned before, and in the case of this Crown corporation it would be very useful to get a policy input from some of the people who work for the company in technical areas particularly. As far as some of the decisions are concerned which, with the benefit of hindsight, seem less than wise, I believe that if some of the maintenance people of Air Canada and some of the pilots and flight crews had had a consultative role to play, we would not have seen Air Canada buy the L-1011.
I have been told repeatedly by pilots that this is not a well-balanced or particularly satisfying aircraft to operate. It was designed to have a stretched model later on, and as a result it does not fly perfectly level in the air. 1 was told it is very difficult sometimes, as a result, for the stewardesses to serve food on this aircraft because the pilot has, as is often said, to fly it a bit up on the step with the nose elevated one or two degrees in order to compensate for its lack of balance. This information may or may not be sound; I don't know. But when you have an airline like Air Canada with approximately 20,000 employees, many of them highly trained and competent people who are watching closely their competitors and who have to be conversant with the latest types of equipment, the servicing and operations, and the merits of different aircraft, it seems to me a waste that some of their knowledge and capability cannot be utilized in an organized way, perhaps through a representative on the board of directors or on a consultative basis through their unions. Advice from the employees might well help the airline improve the quality of some of its operational decisions.
It is far better for this type of input to be available to Air Canada from its own employees than to have that type of suggestion as to what type of aircraft they should buy, or how they should finance them, made by mandarins in government who have never had the occasion to fly an aircraft or to worry about meeting a payroll or servicing the sort of equipment the airline uses. I hope the minister will consider some sort of innovative approach on this basis.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. May I remind hon. members that the House will then proceed with the ordinary daily routine of business.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
[Mr. MacKay.)
May 31, 1977



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the federal government's figures which reveal that unemployment, far from improving as the budget promised, will deteriorate and increase over the next two years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this government take immediate steps to correct this very inhuman situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Goodale said "no".


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given that the Department of Fisheries and the Environment has gone on record as being against further drilling in the Beaufort Sea owing to the immense environmental risks and to the inadequate clean-up technology for handling Arctic oil spills; and given that we have no indication drilling procedures this year will be any better than last year, when control was lost over one well owing to inadequate care on the part of the drilling company and the failure of the government to enforce its drilling regulations, a view supported by the United States government in a note to the Canadian government dated March 15, 1977, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House express its disapproval of the decision to permit offshore drilling in the Beaufort Sea this year and urges the government to withhold
Immigration
approval until clean-up technology for Arctic oil spills is clearly available and the environmental risks have been substantially reduced.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 43, presentation for debate of such a motion can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Goodale said "no".


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that during May food prices in Canada have risen for the fifth consecutive month, increasing by 2.3 per cent, and that the Anti-Inflation Board ascribes that rise partly to the price of potatoes, beef, pork and non-alcoholic beverages which went up by 10 per cent last month, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House take immediately the necessary steps to consider the possibility of subsidizing the consumption of Canadian food products such as potatoes, beef, pork and fish and this through a consumer compensated discount, the main effect of which would be to reduce the price of those products and make them more available to all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
...


IMMIGRATION
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) indicated yesterday that no policy sharing program between the province of Quebec and the government of Canada has been fully developed but that there are to be
6102

May 31, 1977
Old Age Security
working discussions over the summer months between these two specific governments, because there is an urgent need to establish policy which will be acceptable to all provinces and under which the federal government will retain the ultimate authority with regard to immigration of peoples to Canada, and with full recognition of the need for freedom of mobility within the country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That no working discussions be proceeded with until all provinces are invited to participate and that no policy be accepted until first endorsed by the Parliament of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HARBOURS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The port of Prince Rupert has been used as a back-up facility rather than an active export terminal. Greater exploitation of Churchill's natural locational advantage and Prince Rupert's natural locational advantage should be made. Given these findings and evidence in the Hall Report I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urge the government to increase the utilization of the Ports of Prince Rupert and Churchill as recommended by the Hall Commission Report.


Mr. Goodale:: We are already doing it. The motion is redundant.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate can only be done with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, within the last two or three days the two million pensioners of Canada have received from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) a nicely printed brochure asking them to join with him in recognizing the twenty-fifth anniver-

sary of the institution of the Old Age Security Act. As I believe this occasion should be recognized in a more substantial way, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the government be urged, in recognition of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the coming into effect of the Old Age Security Act, to mark this event in a substantial way, (a) by introducing a measure to increase by at least $100 a month the basic amount of the Old Age Security pension, and (b) by lowering the eligible age under both the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan so that the pensions under these two statutes will be available, on a voluntary basis, to all persons between the ages of 60 and 65 who are out of the labour market.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. My question concerns the truly astonishing callousness of the government, the primary concern of which appears not to be job creation but job destruction. Yesterday projections which were irrefutably those of the Department of Manpower and Immigration showed what is very nearly criminal complacency. The projections indicated that by this time next year there may be another 50,000 people added to the 400,000 residents of eastern Canada who are already unemployed. Can the minister tell the House whether he was apprised of this prediction of at least two wasted years before he introduced his budget, and if so, why was he so content to stand pat when there are already one million people out of work?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: As I
indicated in my budget, we did anticipate the difficulty of reducing the rate of unemployment in Canada over the next several years, and indeed that is the reason why instead of standing pat, as the hon. member has said, we have devoted $1.2 billion by way of an additional forgoing of taxation for the purpose of stimulating the economy in this and in succeeding years, and have provided additional direct employment funds through my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, to deal on a selective basis with problems of unemployment particularly among youth, and in the eastern parts of Canada. I would say, therefore, that the budget was specifically directed at these problems of unemployment. 1 regret that the hon. gentleman voted against those measures,
May 31, 1977

but we think they will be in the interest of further activity within the economy and will reduce unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Finger in the dike.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Apparently the minister has not been advised of the ineffectiveness of his "do-nothing" budget. 1 would refer him particularly to the Atlantic provinces economic report which indicates that, despite his budget, things are going to get much worse in Canada. In view of the fact that he said his budget is so great, and keeping in mind that the Atlantic council says it is not, what specific measures does the minister intend to introduce in the near future in order to alleviate this serious situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have taken the position that the best prospect for employment in Canada, both on the short-term basis and over a longer run, is through further stimulation in the private sector. That the best future for Canadians out of work now and for young Canadians coming into the work force is to stimulate the private sector.


Mr. Stevens:: They should go to another country. Which one, Pierre?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I regret that the hon. member does not support this view, but further stimulation of the private sector provides young Canadians and others with the best prospects of economic improvement in this country.


SUGGESTED INTRODUCTION OF REVISED BUDGET
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will have the minister know that we on this side readily understand that it is the private sector that can create full and longlasting employment. In light of the fact that the minister speaks of the private sector bringing about longlasting employment, is it now the intention of the minister to bring in a revised budget in view of the fact that the last budget was a complete disaster?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I might well consider that under some circumstances, but not under prompting by the hon. member who voted against the measures in the last budget that do stimulate employment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Notwithstanding the fact-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Halifax.


UNEMPLOYMENT-REASON FOR LARGE INCREASE IN FIGURES FOR ATLANTIC REGION-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question about what I am sure he will agree are very alarming unemployment figures for
Oral Questions
the Atlantic provinces. Does he accept the analysis recently made by the Economic Council of Canada in its report called "Living Together" in which the council explains the much greater jump that takes place in the rate of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces than in the rest of Canada during a national recession in terms of a greater fall in aggregate demand in the Atlantic provinces than in the rest of the country. I would like to ask the minister-despite the occasional cat-calls down the way-whether he would indicate that he and the government either accept or reject this explanation of the extraordinary jump in unemployment figures that accompanies a recession in the nation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: appreciate the hon. member having brought his interest in this question to my attention in private conversation. I have pursued that with my officials. 1 hope to be able to respond to him at a very early date. With respect to another opinion on the analysis of the Economic Council of Canada and opinions on the questions of fiscal stabilization which the Economic Council Report referred to, I would be happy to bring that to his attention and to the attention of the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If this analysis is correct it certainly corresponds with what 1 might describe as the gut feeling of maritimers through the years. It also goes far to explain the chronic economic difficulties of the Atlantic provinces because each time there is a national recession, the economy there gets set back further and there is a lower platform from which to start again. In view of the fact that the longer this goes on the deeper the difficulties become, may I ask the minister whether he is prepared to give this question some priority? Specifically, is he prepared to discuss the analysis and priorities suggested by the Economic Council of Canada with the premiers of the Atlantic provinces, immediately?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to give it priority and I would be prepared to pursue that further when I have had further comment on the proposal.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development if he can confirm reports that over the weekend Cabinet approved drilling by Dome Petroleum in the Beaufort Sea despite the fact that officials of his department and of the Department of the Environment have recommended against such drilling until more sophisticated technology has been developed? Also, can he explain to the House how he can assure us that there will be stiffer enforcement of the regulations this year than there was last year? I ask this in view of
80016-46*A

May 31, 1977
Oral Questions
the fact that there was an explosion last year, the reasons for which were set forth in a note which the United States government sent to the government of Canada stating that "measures the operators had promised to put into effect to prevent accidents and avoid environmental damage either were not fully implemented or did not function adequately and that of greater concern were the apparent difficulties experienced by authorities-"


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the preamble permitted to the hon. member has already been generous.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, while many elements of the matter have been decided upon there are still loose ends which have to be tied. As soon as they are, an announcement will be made, perhaps as soon as tomorrow. 1 must say I do not accept any of the other allegations made in the hon. member's remarks.


DRILLING IN BEAUFORT SEA-REASON FOR 30-DAY SAFETY PERIOD
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has approval been given or has approval not been given? According to the report in the press there is to be only a 30-day no-drilling period. I would ask the minister to explain why his department recommended a 14-day period for safety and why, according to the press reports, the Cabinet recommended 30 days whereas the minister's department originally recommended 40 days? The department is reported to have sent a memorandum to Cabinet saying that had last year's blowout involved oil no relief well could have been drilled and that oil might still be seeping into the Beaufort Sea. Surely the minister can tell the House whether approval has been given for drilling and if so, whether a 30-day period is all that has been set aside which would give rise to the same disastrous situation as happened last summer?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, many elements of the hon. member's statement are incorrect. All information with respect to the decision will be given when we announce the decision tomorrow, including the reasoning behind the decision.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister is stalling. May 1 ask him if it is not becoming increasingly clear that the government's desire for activity in the Beaufort Sea is simply to justify its intention to approve the building of a pipeline from the Mackenzie Valley on the application for a permit from Arctic Gas? Is it not a fact that all the meetings of the National Energy Board and the sittings of the Berger Commission have been a virtual farce, that the government has already made up its mind and this is the prelude to that decision.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's suggestion is completely false. If he were to read the Berger report he would note that Mr. Justice Berger did not oppose a pipeline for all time. He said there was room to do exploration in the north but no pipeline should be built for ten years.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
The London Conference in which the Prime Minister took part generated some fresh ideas in respect of this new order we have been hearing so much about since 1974 and which has been emphasized by President Giscard d'Estaing. Could the Prime Minister inform the House in a few words what is meant by this new order; will it in effect create more and more unemployment while removing some of the tariff barriers?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can give the hon. member a brief answer to his question. When speaking about a new order, he no doubt refers to an international economic new order, an expression used to define a very complex reality that is now being debated in Paris under the co-chairmanship of the President of the Privy Council. On his return, the hon. member might wish to ask him more precise questions which will be answered then.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with regard to the announcement the minister hopes to make tomorrow. Will that statement with regard to the Dome-Canmar application for drilling permits be made on motions, and will the minister undertake to table any conditions which may attach to the drilling permits?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the announcement will be made as soon as we can tie up some of the remaining loose ends. I will try to make a statement, if those loose ends are tied up in time. With respect to the tabling of information, I will see what can be done.

May 31, 1977


DRILLING IN BEAUFORT SEA-REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES
William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the gravity of the situation, I hope the minister will make his statement on motions in order to be in the position to answer some important questions. This morning's press reports indicate that the present option of the drilling company for posting a $10 million bond to compensate for environmental damage done to United States territory will be replaced by what is called a "permanent solution". Does this permanent solution, so-called, involve reciprocal legislation with the United States, whereby Canadians along our west coast who may suffer environmental damage because of oil tanker spills will be compensated as United States citizens will be compensated for damage done to their environment. In other words, is this so-called permanent solution to be a one-way street, or a two-way street?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we will deal with these matters when the announcement is made. Meanwhile I suggest the hon. member should not believe everything he reads in newspaper reports.


William Herbert Jarvis: Make a statement, then.


POSSIBILITY OF ACTION TO INCREASE EXPORT TRADE OF ATLANTIC PROVINCES WITH UNITED STATES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. According to the Atlantic provinces economic council, the Atlantic region is unable to absorb people coming on to the work force or increased production. According to the report the situation is deteriorating. Since the region's economic hopes are based mainly on its export markets in the United States, which country's economic performance is expected to be better than Canada's, and since that market absorbs some 85 per cent of our pulp and paper, 75 per cent of our fish, more than 75 per cent of our iron ore and 20 per cent of our lumber, will the minister take steps to get in touch with his counterpart in the United States, in the hope that increased sales of our primary, staple products will stimulate the private sector of our area.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have already visited the United States. As a matter of fact, I set this up as a priority when I took over the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce portfolio. Since last fall, I have visited four or five decision-making centres to promote trade between Canada and the United States; indeed, when I went to the Middle East, I was accompanied by a pulp and paper producer in an effort to promote the sale of these manufactured goods which originate from the
Oral Questions
Atlantic provinces. Therefore, we keep on trying, because we feel our relationship with the United States is of paramount importance, and 1 am glad to see the hon. member shares this point of view.
V *	*


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same minister. The Export Development Corporation, a Crown corporation under the minister's department, could help out in the distressing and deteriorating pulp and paper industry, and I refer in particular to the linerboard industry. However, the Export Development Corporation is restricted in the help it can give to this industry. Will the minister introduce some flexibility into the terms of reference of the Export Development Corporation in order to help this potential industry in improving the capacity of the building?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall seek information from that Crown corporation, and we shall carry out the necessary improvements, if they are warranted.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Cl DA, which comes under his department, can also help. It is helping other countries with technical assistance and financing to help build linerboard and pulp and paper mills which are taking away our markets. Will the minister review the situation with a view to providing funding in order to create markets in those countries for our marketable products?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there has been any financing for the kind of operation the hon. member speaks of overseas, but it is a very good idea to look at whether they can use products from Canadian plants such as the linerboard mill. I will be glad to take the hon. member's suggestion.

May 31, 1977
Oral Questions


PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL FROM HELSINKI AGREEMENT IN VIEW OF DISREGARD OF SOVIET UNION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the answer given in this House Wednesday, May 25, regarding the violation of the Helsinki accord as exemplified in the lost human rights and fundamental freedoms of Ioseph Begun, and in view of Russia's obvious show of contempt for the signatories to that agreement, will Canada reconsider her position, dissociate and withdraw from the Helsinki agreement at the Belgrade meeting scheduled for this fall?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would think that would be most unlikely, Mr. Speaker.


USE OF POST OFFICE FOR DELIVERY OF DEPARTMENTAL MAIL-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). Has her department adopted the policy of not using the post office for the delivery of departmental and other mail, but rather using a courier service or other such means?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but if we do we will probably entertain the use of Newfoundland dogs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if there is no departmental policy against using the mails for the delivery of correspondence and cheques, why did the Secretary of State for External Affairs take a government jet aircraft to St. John's last Friday, May 27, to, as stated in the newspapers, "fork over a $1.5 million cheque" to the Canada Summer Games chairman at a brief ceremony at St. John's airport on Friday at a cost of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Central Nova.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. He is not in the chamber at the moment. Perhaps I could ask it later.


MANPOWER
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and immigration. In view of the unemployment crisis in our nation and in view of the government's attempts to alleviate it by the introduction of

job creation programs such as Canada Works and Young Canada Works, will the minister take immediate steps to expedite approval of all applications made months ago under these programs, including programs and projects which are now classified as "status unclear" in order to assist in alleviating unemployment in those areas of high unemployment?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1 will so advise my staff, Mr. Speaker.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour with respect to the agreement reportedly entered into between the CLC and the government of Canada with reference to a grant of $10 million in public funds for the purpose of labour education. Will he table the precise terms of this agreement and will the agreement, when tabled, explain precisely how these public moneys are being used and who it is that will judge whether these funds are being used, as I trust they will be, in the public interest? Will the Auditor General have any role in monitoring the use of the funds?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, to both questions, Mr. Speaker. Yes, the Auditor General will have a role and yes, I will be pleased to table the agreement.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. The government, in announcing the grant, has implied it is a quid pro quo to counter-balance comparable grants which have already been made to management. Is it management per se, or rather employers or employer organizations? Would the minister give details of such so-called comparable grants so that organizations which have not received them will not be perceived to have been the beneficiaries. For example, have grants been made to the CM A, Chambers of Commerce, construction organizations or organizations of that type?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, but government tax moneys go to the universities to provide courses in business administration. They are usually of tangible assistance to management and industry in this country. However, there are no analogous courses for people who wish to pursue careers, and useful careers at that, in the trade union movement. For certain courses that are undertaken by employees I believe there is a tax deductability for the corporation.
May 31, 1977


PLANS FOR MARKETING SURPLUS WHEAT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture who met recently with the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, Mr. Bergland. Apparently there was some concern over the marketing of wheat. In view of the deep feeling of fear in western Canada on the part of farmers over the fact that the amount of wheat in surplus now amounts to seven million bushels-If they wish to consult together, I will hold my question. The Minister of Transport is advising the Minister of Agriculture what is the best answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: What plans does the government have in mind for the marketing of wheat? I ask this because the surplus is piling up to such an extent that it is becoming even worse than when we came into office.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there were discussions. I was present when discussions took place between my counterpart and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I think the minister in charge of the wheat board should answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to confirm to hon. members that the wheat board's efforts in selling grain are continuing. With a record volume of production last year, there will of course be some increase in the amount of wheat on hand, but not a burdensome increase by any means. There will perhaps be a total of 200 million bushels out of what was a record crop. Apparently barley sales have been going so well that if the weather had not turned for the good, we would have been quite concerned about having an adequate amount for our markets. I might also tell the right hon. member and other hon. members today that the Canadian Wheat Board has just confirmed the completion of another sale to China for 110 million bushels of wheat commencing this fall.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am always glad to hear of sales made to Communist China because when we brought this about, those sitting opposite in the Liberal party at that time condemned it as ridiculous. I would like to get the attention of the Minister of Agriculture who is now getting instructions from another former minister. The reason I asked him the question was in view of the Reuter despatch to the effect that it was he and the United States Secretary for Agriculture who discussed the matter and then it went on to say that the Canadian minister responsible for the Wheat Board, Otto
Oral Questions
Lang, was also involved in the discussion. So the general discussions were with him. Now I ask him, having regard to all the circumstances and the fact that there is this tremendous surplus, irrespective of the statement made by the Minister of Transport, is he still of the opinion that things would be far better if the responsibility for wheat were placed under his jurisdiction rather than under the present minister?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


GREATER USE OF PRINCE RUPERT AS EXPORT PORT FOR GRAIN-EXPANSION AND MODERNIZATION OF FACILITIES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My questions are also for the Bobbsy twins, Mr. Speaker. I will put my first question to the boss, the Minister of Transport. On May 17 he received a telegram from the grain coordinating committee in Prince Rupert, B.C., asking for the expansion and greater utilization of the Port of Prince Rupert as a major Pacific export point for grain. When can we expect the minister to announce a program to increase the utilization of that port and the modernization of its facilities?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, a decision will be made soon.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Maybe I should ask the Minister without Portfolio from Alberta, Mr. Speaker. But anyway 1 will address a supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture who also received a similar telegram. The Hall Commission recommends that the Prince Rupert terminal be expanded from 2,250,000 bushels to 6 million bushels and be fully modernized. I should like to ask the minister when he intends to make an announcement that the port will be expanded as the Hall Commission recommends. Also, when he is awarding tenders for the Prince Rupert elevator, can he assure us that that tender will not go to the Carghill Grain Company?


Eugene Whelan: I have received a final report from the Grain Commission which advises me about the terminal facilities and what should be done with them. A decision will be made shortly. When the hon. member talks about tenders and so on, these were submissions which were made to us by the grain companies about how they would operate the facilities at Prince Rupert.


AIRPORTS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It deals with the government's two recent ventures into airport construction- Mirabel and Pickering. Would the minister indicate what steps are being taken to try to make Mirabel a more viable airport?

May 31, 1977
Oral Questions
Is it true consideration is being given to awarding landing rights to the Concord? Further, would he clear the air with regard to Pickering and say once and for all that they have dropped their plans to construct that airport near Toronto?


Otto Emil Lang: The question with regard to the Concord is, as far as I know, hypothetical. We have not received a formal request with regard to its landing. We are attempting to improve the way in which passengers can move through Mirabel to points beyond in Canada. In order to increase the convenience to passengers we have been making a traffic study from this point of view and it is very likely we shall conclude that additional direct flights from Mirabel to a point in Western Canada in addition to those recently added to Ottawa and Toronto will be an adequate first step to increase the desirability of Mirabel.
With respect to Toronto, we have been taking every step we can to examine how passengers can be conveniently offered an opportunity to fly into and out of Toronto in the period ahead when we see increasing numbers creating some very serious problems. The improvement of the use of Mirabel is, of course, one of the alternatives we are looking at.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary centres on an advertisement placed by the Logan Airport Authority in Boston in which they are soliciting Canadian business away from Mirabel. The advertisement refers to hypothetical travellers, the Simpsons, and it says: "The Simpsons want to thank you for that scenic, restful one and a half-hour 37-mile busride to Mirabel." And it adds: "Funny, but the Simpsons thought they were flying to Europe." The message is: "Come through Boston: We will get you there quicker". Is the minister familiar with this advertisement and could he inform us to what extent Logan Airport in Boston is taking business away from Mirabel through the sheer inefficiency of Mirabel?


Otto Emil Lang: I regret to see the hon. member endorsing any false advertising. This was brought to my attention by the manager at Mirabel when he wrote to the people in Boston drawing their attention to the falseness of that advertisement and emphasizing the convenience that Mirabel can give and will give to passengers travelling into and out of Canada in the future.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs arising from the hon. gentleman's statement about a year ago that he was setting up a storefront service, to cut down the expense of serving the large veteran population in Western Manitoba. In view of the fact that old soldiers do fade away, would the minister tell us when he intends to set up this operation in Brandon?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The study I initiated at that time in reference to this question is still under way. Brandon is under study at the present time. As far as giving the hon. member a definite date, I prefer not to do so now.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
I want to thank him for the interest he has shown the Joliette area poultry producers' union by saying that he is willing to ask the cabinet to discuss setting up a national chicken marketing board. Unless I am mistaken, the minister is favourable to the creation of such a body; in view of the importance of that board, can the minister tell the House now when the matter will be discussed by the cabinet?


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the minister's answer to the question put to him yesterday by my colleague from Battle River on the complete freedom of immigrants within Canada, to the effect that he had a common denominator with Minister Couture, namely a person's ability to move throughout Canada despite the fact that he might originally have been designated to go to one province, can the minister tell the House whether he intends to amend clause 109(1) of Bill C-24 with a view to granting greater participation to the provinces in the choice of immigrants to their territory? If the minister agrees to it, I am willing to give him a copy of the amendment I intend to move in the House, on third reading.
[English]	.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That bill is before the committee and I think that is the place to deal with it.

May 31, 1977


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. On April 19 1 asked the minister whether he could confirm that the RCMP were investigating alleged illegalities involving the operations of the Bank of Montreal in the Vancouver area and the minister replied that the RCMP commercial crime section in Vancouver were looking into the matter. In view of the fact that this is going on and that the Vancouver Province is presently running a series of articles about what the Bank of Montreal refers to as "the Greek connection", which is certainly uncomplimentary, and involves a series of kickbacks involving a million dollar loss to the bank, can the Solicitor General bring us up to date as to the progress being made in this matter and, keeping in mind any problems of split jurisdiction, can the Solicitor General advise me as to the extent of the information he now has and is prepared to give it to the House?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, if there is an investigation going on the hon. member knows very well it is not the practice to disclose the material obtained during the course of an investigation. If this material constitutes evidence of illegality the matter will be brought before the courts.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and arises out of the answer he gave me in this House on February 24 in which he indicated that the Department of External Affairs had a list of some 136 or 137 cases of political prisoners within the Soviet Union. Since the sub-committee on international organizations in the United States has published a list which names over 700 political prisoners kept in the Soviet Union, can the minister explain the discrepancy between the cases the Canadian government feels worth fighting for and the cases on behalf of which the U.S. government is making representations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check the answer I gave in order to be sure of my facts. My recollection, however, is that I was referring to cases of family reunification; I believe the hon. member said political prisoners or prisoners of conscience. The answer I gave was directed principally to those cases which had been brought to our attention where we had been asked for assistance regarding reunification of families,
Oral Questions
which obviously is quite a different list from the one in the United States to which the hon. member refers.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Accepting his preliminary answer, is it the policy of the Canadian government not to limit itself solely to representations on behalf of reunification of families but to take as a matter of protest to the Soviet authorities cases of all political prisoners kept in the Soviet Union, the list of which far exceeds the 136 or 137 figure given in the House by the minister?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I have indicated on previous occasions, it is the policy of the government to make periodic and indeed frequent representations with regard to the whole range of human rights issues with the Soviet Union. It is not always on the matter of a specific person but on a matter of principle. I think our record is quite clear in that we have been consistent in making the kinds of representations which are also made, of course, by other countries, including the United States.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would tell the House all the reasons justifying his use of Department of Transport aircraft to travel on May 19 to Quebec City and Summerside, P.E.I., and on May 21 to Rouyn, Quebec, while campaigning in the recent byelections; and is the Liberal party going to reimburse the government for the public funds expended in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister and is related to the Prime Minister's journey to London for a few days for the Commonwealth Conference. Concerning the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has yet reached a policy which will at one and the same time resolve the problem of sporting links between New Zealand and South Africa, so there will be no African boycott of the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton, and show the protest of Canadians to the presence of Idi Amin in Canada during the Commonwealth Games, on the ground that the report of the International Commission of Jurists to the United Nations showed that

May 31, 1977
Oral Questions
100,000 people were murdered in Uganda during the six years of Amin's administration?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first question, Mr. Speaker, of the Commonwealth Games there has been a great deal of preparatory work by myself, by the Minister of External Affairs and our officials. On many occasions we have tried to solve this question. If it is not solved before the London conference next week then we must find some way of solving it there. The second question is premature.


REQUEST THAT REPORT OF INTERNATIONAL JURISTS ON UGANDA BE ON AGENDA OF COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
Douglas Roche: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, having to do with the International Commission of Jurists report which Canadian ambassador Beaulne told the external affairs committee last week would not be dealt with by the United Nations until next February. Therefore I now ask the Prime Minister whether he will personally acquaint himself with this report and put it on the agenda of the Commonwealth Conference in London.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is too late to put it on the agenda, Mr. Speaker.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board in his capacity as the government's chief employer. My question is based on an announcement made by his colleague the Minister of Labour in a recent speech to the Canadian Association of Temporary Services in which he said that the government would seek to provide for unorganized workers certain benefits and forms of protection they do not now enjoy. In view of the fact that the government, through Treasury Board, employs a great many individuals in Ottawa and in other places from temporary services organizations, Office Overload people and so on, where there are no such benefits or forms of protection, will the President of the Treasury Board take steps to insist that these benefits and forms of protection now apply?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the question of temporary employment pools or temporary employment agencies is being looked at more particularly by the Public Service Commission. I think there will be some announcements in that regard in the not too distant future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister take steps to obtain from the Minister of Labour the precise provisions which he
[Mr. Roche.)
announced, and see to it that they are made available to all those who are concerned in this matter?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I note the hon. member's representation and I will consult with my colleague.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Labour arising out of the speech which he made to the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Temporary Services in the city of Edmonton. I think the minister indicated he was intending to bring down legislation at some stage, and he and I both know the situation with respect to House business now. In view of that 1 wonder if the minister would consider putting his proposals into the form of a green or white paper which we might be able to consider in advance of the legislative proposal? To put it another way, has he rejected that and, if not, would he consider it?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that is a proposal which is worth considering and I will do so.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the promise by the leader of the NDP, Mr. Stephen Lewis, in the Ontario provincial election that, if elected, he would raise the minimum wage to $4, and owing to Ontario's dominance in our economy, if this proposal were carried out across the country, would it increase inflation and would it work against the decontrols process?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member surely realizes that the question is extremely hypothetical.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Now that the Hall commission has made its recommendations, will the CNR be continuing with the installation of heavy steel to Churchill to accommodate the 100 ton hopper cars?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have drawn to the attention of Canadian National my view that the reason they gave for discontinuing the upgrading of the Herchmer subdivision was inadequate and I asked them to
May 31, 1977

review the situation. 1 have not yet had a response in this regard. I am happy to tell the hon. member that other matters relating to Churchill are going forward and a $5.6 million contract for dredging is now being let for the harbour.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since there is a great deal of misunderstanding and confusion between agricultural producer groups and consumers as to what a comprehensive food policy should consist of, I would ask the Prime Minister whether the government is considering the setting up of a joint food policy council consisting of both private and government members to cover every segment of food production from transportation to tariffs, in order to come up with a comprehensive national food policy which could be set before not only producer groups but also consumers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 take that to be a representation. I will consider it most seriously.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the Special Order passed by the House yesterday, for the balance of the month of June the House will be sitting extra hours. One of the features of that order is considering matters set aside for the adjournment debate, not at ten o'clock, between ten and ten thirty, but at six o'clock, between six and six thirty. That raises certain administrative difficulties in that Standing Orders provide that the Chair must indicate at five o'clock each day the subjects to be dealt with at the hour of adjournment, which is ordinarily five hours later. This gives time to the member who is involved in putting the question at the hour of the adjournment and also for the responder from the government to make preparations to meet that eventuality. If we were to continue to adhere to that procedure, obviously we would make these announcements and decisions at five o'clock for an event which is to take place one hour later, which really does not provide that opportunity.
It is my responsibility to make those choices each day. The order will not have any effect tomorrow, being Wednesday, but will have effect again on Thursday. It is to be hoped that consultations between now and Thursday afternoon might lead to some solution to the problem. In the meantime, I am attempting to meet it today in the only way that seems reasonable to me, which is to exercise my prerogative to choose questions for the late show for six o'clock this afternoon and to announce them to the House at this time, which is contrary to the practices of the House and the Standing Orders. 1 hope it will be accepted on this occasion until we find a better way to
Adjournment Motion
do it, bearing in mind that at six o'clock there must be some preparation by the people on both sides.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised on the adjournement motion which, pursuant to the Special Order will take place at six p.m., are as follows: the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis)-Transport-Request for statistical data indicating risk of oil spills as a result of increased tanker traffic; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Air Transport-Effect of proposed take-over by Transair by Pacific Western on prairie regional service; and the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)- Income Tax-Meal allowance for truck drivers-possibility of change.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in connection with a question which I attempted to put this afternoon in order to understand the reason for your ruling. I asked the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) whether her department had a policy of no longer using the Post Office for mail, but rather a courier service in connection with departmental correspondence. She answered no, that they did not have such a policy, although they might use Newfoundland dogs, which is very apropos. I was granted permission to ask a supplementary question. My supplementary question was: in that event, why was the Secretary of State for External Affairs apparently asked to deliver a cheque for $1.5 million to St. John's by government jet last Friday to the Canada Summer Games Committee during a brief stop at the airport and a ceremony?
I was going to continue by saying that he went on to do business in his district. Why was that necessary if there are mails? Why was it necessary since the committee was in Ottawa on May 16, just ten days ago, at a ceremony here on parliament hill? The cheque could have been passed over then. Your Honour did not let me complete the question, and that is why I raise this point of order. If you could explain to me why that was out of order, I would appreciate it.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me, if the hon. member refers to questions which are both frivolous and argumentative, he will understand my ruling.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
May 31, 1977

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry-Mr. Bechard.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-Mr. Langlois.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
* *
*

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table references to the administrator under the Anti-Inflation Act. There are three with regard to Charterways Company, Ltd.; and references with regard to the New Brunswick Engineering and Field Group Employees, the New Brunswick Forestry Group Employees, the New Brunswick Pharmacy, Mental and Physical Rehabilitation Group; and the Victoria General Hospital, Winnipeg.


OLYMPIC (1976) ACT TABLING OF REPORT RESPECTING COINS
Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1 would like to table also the report to parliament under the Olympic (1976) Act with respect to Olympic coins up to March 31, 1977.
* *
*


OFFICE OF THE MINISTER OF STATE-FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	What will be the cost of establishing the new sub-ministry responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sport?
2.	What number of personnel will be responsible to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and what will be their salaries?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. No new sub-ministry responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sport has been established. However, a Minister of State has been appointed to assist the Minister of National Health and Welfare in carrying out his responsibilities with respect to the policy and programs related to fitness and amateur sport. The cost of establishing this Ministry of State is estimated at $123,000 which will be funded by existing Departmental budgets.
2.	As of the date of this question, the Minister of State employed 5 persons through her exempt budget. The related salary ranges are shown below:
No.	Title	Salary1	Executive Assistant	up to $27,2502	Special Assistants	up to $22,9001	Private Secretary	up to $17,9001	Secretary	up to $12,500RESEARCH INTO CANCER AND HEART DISEASE	
Question No. 993-Mr. Howie:		
In each fiscal	year ending March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1975 (c) 1974 (d)	
what amount was spent for research into (i) cancer (ii) heart disease?		
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister		of National Health
Welfare): In	so far as the Department of National Health	
Welfare is concerned:		
	(i) Cancer	(ii) Heart Disease
(a)	$849,988	$423,672(b)	$795,819	$491,562(c)	$751,547	$487,228(d)	$522,181	$458,062In so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned:	(i) Cancer	(ii) Heart Disease(a)	$4,751,819	$4,963,319(b)	$4,387,506	$4,734,831(c)	$3,752,149	$4,632,807(d)	$3,515,318	$3,707,166


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 702, 993, 1348, 2192, 2312, 2340, 2361,2373, 2392, 2422 and 2446.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): Is (a) DREE (b) the Department of Finance (c) the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce aware of measures in effect in Ireland which allow full relief from import duties on plant and equipment for industry in designated development areas and, if so, are any such measures (i) now in effect in Canada
May 31, 1977

(ii) under study or contemplated for the future as encouragement to more balanced industrial development between Canada's regions, and if so, what are
they?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion, Finance and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: (a) See question No. 1346 answered on March 11, 1977. (b) The results of enquiries by the Department of Finance indicate that Ireland has not adopted tariff relief measures on machinery and equipment relating specifically to industries located in designated development areas. Canada has no provisions of this kind nor are any being considered at this time. There is, however, a program of general application, the machinery program, which is administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The program covers a broad range of machines, as well as their accessories, attachments, control equipment, tools and parts, used by the manufacturing and service industries. It provides for remission of duty on imported machinery when the Machinery and Equipment Advisory Board considers that reasonably equivalent machinery is not available from Canadian production and that remission is in the public interest, (c) The results of enquiries by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicate that there are no measures in Ireland which allow full relief from import duties on plant and equipment for industry in designated development areas. The existing custom licensing provisions empower the Minister of Industry and Commerce to waive the custom duties only to the extent that Irish duty is higher than Community Common Tariff (CCT) with regard to plant and equipment not manufactured in Ireland. However, as of July 1, 1977, Ireland will apply CCT fully. The Minister will not have power to relieve any tariff and CCT will apply in all cases, (i) and (ii) The Machinery program of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce allows for remission of duties on machinery and equipment of a type not manufactured in Canada.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	On December 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976, how many persons were employed by the asbestos industry in Quebec?
2.	For each of the same years, what was the total in salaries paid to such persons?
3.	For each of the same years, what was the value of the asbestos produced?
4.	For each of the same years, what were the profits accrued to the companies?
5.	What (a) federal (b) provincial taxes were paid in (i) 1973-74 (ii) 1974-75 by the companies?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports: 1. (a) On December 31, 1975, there were 6,057 persons employed by the asbestos industry in Quebec. (b) On December 31, 1976 there were 6,339 persons employed by the asbestos industry in Quebec.
Note: These are the total number of employees reported for the last pay period of the month; data are not available for end of month.
Order Paper Questions
2.	The total salaries for 1975 were $63,188,000. This information for 1976 is not available.
3.	The value of the asbestos produced was $176,943,000.00 for 1975 and $343,164,000 (Preliminary) for 1976.
4.	The profits accrued to the companies were: Net Profit before taxes and non-recurring items: 1975-5 companies- confidential because of dominance) 1976-5 companies- $114,576,000.00.
5.	(a) The federal taxes paid by the companies in 1973-74 were $11,821,000. This information for 1974-75 is not yet available, (b) The provincial taxes paid by the companies were $4,784,000. This information is not yet available for 1974-75.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Has Lockheed been paid the progress payment on the LRPA Contract of (a) $2,905,000 which was due on November 30, 1976 (b) $3,375,000 which was due on December 31, 1976 (c) $4,523,000 which was due on January 31, 1977 (d) $3,715,000 which was due on February 28, 1977 (e) $4,658,000 which was due on March 31,1977?
2.	Has Lockheed been paid the second Accomplishment Milestone Payment of $517,000?
3.	Were any adjustments made to the Contract at the end of the first quarter of 1977, in accordance with the formula and conditions set out in Articles 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 of the Contract and, if so, what were they?
4.	Have the specifications and capabilities of the Comox Data Interpretation and Analysis Centre set out in Article 1.1(1) of the Contract been defined yet and, if so, what is its estimated cost in (a) dollars (b) as a percentage of the cost of the DIAC at Greenwood?
5.	Have any modifications been made to the Contract, including Progress and Milestone Payments schedules, to accommodate the purchase of the Comox DIAC, or is the purchase of the DIAC being handled separately and, if so, in what manner?
6.	Since the Contract was signed, have any changes been made in the LRPA Project Office and, if so, what are they?
7.	Have any changes been made to Article 4 of the Contract with respect to the role and authority of the LRPA (a) Project Manager (b) Deputy Project Manager and, if so, what are they?
8.	Has the Minister exercised the option under the Contract to purchase a Versatile Avionics Shop Test (VAST) system, together with Interconnecting Devices (IDs) and Test Programme Sets (TPSs) for a firm fixed price of US $16,500,000 and, if not (a) for what reason (b) are there any plans to acquire the system at a later date?
9.	(a) Has the contracting authority made any changes in the work and specifications, or the place or time of delivery, of the LRPA System under Article 37 of the Contract and, if so, what are they (b) has the contractor submitted any engineering change proposals in accordance with Article 37.2 and, if so, have any adjustments been made to the Contract price in accordance with Article 37.3 and, if so, what are they?
10.	For what reason were Articles 39.1 to 39.10 inclusive of the Contract, covering Canadian industrial benefits and industrial benefits commitments, not included in the Contract as tabled in the House of Commons?
11.	With reference to P-3 structural components tooling which is to be moved to Canada as part of the Aurora Programme, has the shipment of tooling for rudders and elevators and for nose and aft radomes commenced and, if so, has shipment been completed?
12.	Has the Minister entered into any contracts with consultants or other contractors to assist him during the performance of the Contract under Article

May 31, 1977
Order Paper Questions
49.1 and, if so (a) who are the consultants (b) what is the amount of each contract?
13.	Does Article 60.1 of the Contract state certain premises with respect to the future actions of the US Government and, is the Contract based on these premises and, if so, have these premises, as set out in Articles 60.1 (a), (b) and (c) remained unchanged and, if not (a) what are the changes (b) what steps have been taken by the Minister to adjust the Contract price accordingly or to make other arrangements with the US government?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1.	(a)(b)(c)(d)(e) Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	The manner in which the purchase of the Comox DIAC is to be handled has yet to be determined.
6.	Yes. The LRPA Project Office per se is no longer in existence. This office was put in place to deal with the specifics of programme definition. On completion of this task, a new organization was established, designed specifically to handle the implementation phase of the programme.
7.	Yes. All reference to the LRPA project manager and deputy project manager has been deleted from Article 4 of the Contract and the following substituted: "4.1 The Director, CP-140 Procurement Branch, Department of Supply and Services (throughout called the "Director") is the contracting authority and the officer designated to be responsible for the management and administration of the contract and, for these purposes he is an agent of the Minister . . . 4.2 The Aurora Programme Manager is the representative of the Department of National Defence appointed by that Department to perform the duties assigned to him under the Contract. .
8.	Yes. (a) Not applicable (b) Not applicable.
9.	(a) No. (b) No.
10.	The contract tabled in the House of Commons included all Articles covering Canadian industrial benefits and industrial benefit commitments, and was identical to that executed with Lockheed. There is an inconsistency in the numbering of Article 39.0 as compared with the other articles of the contract. This could give the impression that a number of sub-articles have been omitted. This is not the case.
11.	Yes, it has been completed.
12.	Yes. (a) Dr. S. J. Kubina. (b) $15,000.
13.	Yes. However, the facts are different than the premises in that the U.S. Government requires a payment for the recovery of non-recurring cost on the P-3A or S-3A. The Minister has made arrangements with the United States Government for payment of these charges outside the Lockheed CP-140 contract. Accordingly, the CP-140 Contract Price will not be adjusted.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Does the government plan to press the United States for the removal of its tariffs on flax, linoil and linseed meal?

2.	Has the government pressed for their removal previously and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what has been the US response?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1. Both Canada and the United States are currently participating in multilateral trade negotiations in Geneva aimed at the reduction or elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers to international trade. The Canadian Trade and Tariffs Committee was established in 1973 to receive the views of all Canadians with respect to Canada's participation in these trade negotiations. Since that time, several Canadian interests, including provincial governments and industry associations, have suggested that Canada should seek reduction or removal of U.S.A. tariffs on certain oilseed products. These include not only flaxseed, linoil and linseed meal, but also certain rapeseed, sunflowerseed and mustardseed products. The Canadian delegation in Geneva has notified the U.S.A. of our export interest in these and other agricultural products, and we will be pursuing this matter in the course of the negotiations.
2.	Under the U.S.A. Trade Act of 1974, the President has been granted the authority to negotiate the removal of U.S.A. tariffs of 5 percent ad valorem or lower. It is therefore possible that complete elimination of the U.S.A. tariffs on flaxseed and on linseed meal might be negotiated. U.S.A. tariffs above 5 percent ad valorem, such as that which applies on linseed oil, would be eligible for a maximum duty reduction of 60 percent.
3.	The current round of multilateral trade negotiations is the first to take place since the Kennedy Round of 1964-67. At the time of the Kennedy Round, Canada, as the principal supplier to the United States of linseed oil cake and meal, was able to successfully negotiate a reduction in the U.S.A. duty from 0.22 cent lb. to the current 0.12 cent lb. As Canada was not a significant supplier of either flaxseed or linoil to the U.S.A., we were not in a position to press for a reduction of U.S.A. duties on those products. Since the Kennedy Round, however, Canada has become the principal foreign supplier of all three products to the U.S.A. market, and we will therefore be in a better position to press our interests in the current trade negotiations.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	What was the total amount, by province, assigned as base fund allocations for grants to local groups since 1972 under the Consumer Affairs Programme of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	By province, what amounts were actually distributed?
3.	Have any applications for such grants to local groups been received by the Department from (a) Hamilton (b) Burlington (c) Stoney Creek (d) Grimsby (e) Oakville (f) Ancaster (g) Dundas (h) St. Catharines, Ontario, since 1972 and, if so (i) how many (ii) what number and percentage have been successful (iii) what was the total amount granted in each case?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The base fund allocation for grants to local consumer organizations was not initiated until the start of the fiscal year 1976/77. The sum of $225,000 was set aside (on a national basis) for grants to local groups. This sum was
May 31, 1977

apportioned by region based on demographic factors (distribution of families). (1) Atlantic Region, $42,500; (2) Quebec Region, $46,000; (3) Ontario Region, $60,500; (4) Prairie Region, $49,500; (5) Pacific Region, $26,500; Total $225,000.
2.	In 1976/77, the following grants were awarded to local organizations for consumer education and assistance projects. (1) Atlantic Region: Newfoundland, $13,000, NAPO Mobile education project; $6,000, CAC (Nfld.) complaints and enquiries; New Brunswick $11,000, Centre de Communication et d'information mobile Bathurst; $3,500, CHIMO, Fredericton debt and credit counselling; $5,000, Northumberland Information and Referral Centre, Chatham complaints and Enquiries; Total $38,500, (2) Quebec Region: $4,000, CAC (La Tuque)-Complaints and Enquiries; $10,000, Service d'aide aux consommateurs Shawinigan, complaints and enquiries; $3,000, CAC (Trois-Rivieres) consumer assistance, research; Total $17,000,
NB: Grants of $50,000 were also made to the Automobile Protection Association and L'lnstitut de Promotion des Inte-rets du Consommateur.
(3) Ontario Region: $10,000, Quinte Information and Assistance Centre, Belleville, complaints and enquiries; $8,000, Nutrition Improvement Project, Waterloo, consumer education; $3,700, Nepean Contact, Ottawa, consumer education; $2,500, North Bay Family Life Centre, credit counselling; $1,835, Thunder Bay Indian Friendship Centre, consumer education; $7,000, Hamilton Central Information Service, complaints and enquiries; $1,300, Porcupine Credit Counselling Service, Timmins, credit counselling; $12,000, Italian Immigrant Aid Society, Toronto, consumer education, complaints and enquiries; $7,000, Peterborough Information Centre, complaints and enquiries; $2,000, Information Niagara, complaints and enquiries; $3,500, Information Sudbury, complaints and enquiries; $2,000, New Welfare Action Centre, Toronto, consumer education; Total $60,835. (4) Prairie Region: Manitoba, $12,375, Community Consumer Credit Counselling Winnipeg, debit and credit counselling; Saskatchewan $14,770, Community Service Centre, Prince Albert, consumer education and assistance; Alberta $21,900, Calgary Family Service Bureau, money management education program; N.W.T. $5,000, Baffin Region Inuit Association, consumer education; Total $54,045. (5) Pacific Region: $7,900, Consumer Action League, Vancouver, debt and credit counselling and income tax service; $6,000, Consumer Action League, West Kootenay, consumer assistance; $3,500, Mission Community Services, consumer information; $4,925, Nanaimo A.I.D. Centre, consumer education; $775, Community Planning Association of British Columbia-survey; Total $23,100,
3.	In 1976, one grant request was received from a Hamilton organization. A grant of $7,000, was awarded to the Hamilton Central Information Service to undertake a pilot project involving consumer complaints and enquiries. No grant requests were receive- from Burlington, Stoney Creek, Grimsby, Oakville, Ancaster, Dundas, or St. Catharines.
Order Paper Questions THE DRUG "NAPROSYN"


Mr. Rynard: 1.	Did the Food and Drug Directorate, Department of National Health and Welfare, test the drug Naproxyn before allowing its sale in Canada and, if so, what were the results?
2.	Is the government aware of studies conducted on Naproxyn by the United States Health of Animals Branch and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What, if any, negative and precautionary factors have been reported to the Food and Drug Directorate concerning Naproxyn?
4.	What other drugs, if any, are available for use by arthritics?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Health Protection Branch evaluated the available data on the drug Naprosyn prior to issuing a notice of compliance permitting sale in Canada. The branch did not test the drug.
2.	The Health Protection Branch is aware of the American Food and Drug Administration's investigation of animal studies carried out on Naprosyn in the U.S.A.
3.	The Health Protection Branch has received a number of reports of adverse reactions to Naprosyn. These reports have not required any changes in the precautions listed for the drug at the time when the Notice of Compliance was issued.
4.	There are many other drugs available for use by arthritics including ASA (acetylsalicylic acid), phenylbutazone, indome-thacin, ibuprofen, steroids, gold salts, and a number of recently introduced agents such as fenoprofen and tolmetin.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Has approval been given for the new CANEX complex at CFB Gagetown?
2.	Will the recreation facilities of the complex, when completed, be available to all dependents of Armed Forces personnel without charge and will they be available on the same basis to the Town of Oromocto?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.
No. This project is only in the intitial planning stage.
2. The facilities of the complex will be available to all dependents of Armed Forces personnel. However, some participant charge will have to be levied for most activities to obtain the funds necessary to meet operating and debt repayment costs since the complex will be constructed primarily with non-public funds (i.e Canex profits, messes and canteen etc.) as well as being maintained and operated from non-public funds. The facilities will also be available to the local community, after the needs of the military community have been met, at a charge to defray the costs as explained above.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What additional staff was hired and what was the cost to operate the Student Summer Employment Programme (a) Summer Product Safety (b) Summer Puppet under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	Are any other programmes available for students under the Department?

May 31, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: 1. Twenty-three students were hired during the summer of 1976 to staff the Summer Product Safety Program. Costs were: (a) Salaries, $27,252; (b) Other costs, $51,774 (includes travel and living expenses paid out to students) Total $79,026.
Note: The Summer Product Safety and the Summer Puppet Programs are one and the same.
2. Yes. In 1977, the following programs will be sponsored by the Department: (a) Summer Product Safety Program (SSEAP)*; (b) Summer Job Corps (SSEAP)*; (i) Food Talk; (ii) CCAC in Action; (c) Career Oriented Summer Employment Program (COSEP); (d) Non-Career Oriented Summer Employment Program (NCOSEP).
* SSEAP-Student Summer Employment Activities Program-a program controlled by the Department of Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Rynard: ]. Is financial assistance available to the small independent service station operators and petroleum dealers for conversion to the metric system of gasoline pumps and delivery trucks with meters and (a) if so, in what manner (b) if not, is any being planned?
2. Is there a possibility that Canada will delay its change to metric conversion to coincide with a decision by the United States in this regard?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. (a) Yes, some assistance may be granted under the terms of Revenue Canada Interpretation Bulletin IT-348. (November 2, 1976); (b) Refer to 1 (a).
2. The U.S. Metric Conversion Act was signed into law on December 23, 1975 by President Ford. Over one hundred sector committees in Canada are planning and scheduling metric conversion, each in accordance with its own supplier and customer needs and constraints, including those of suppliers and customers in the United States.


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


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to question No. 1 on the order paper, which has been outstanding since October 12 and was also on the order paper in the last session of parliament. This question concerns William Teron of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and asks for the amount of government business that he, or companies with which he is associated, has received since April 20, 1968. It seems to me all this time, which is in effect over a year, would be sufficient for the government to answer this question. I feel I have a legitimate point of order in drawing

attention, as I have before, to the fact that it has not been answered and ask when I can obtain an answer.
I would like to draw attention to questions 29 and 30, and certain other questions too numerous to list, all on the subject of the use of government aircraft by cabinet ministers. I am referring to one in particular concerning the Minister of Agriculture. The question asks for the cost of 32 trips which he made with his relatives at public expense. Those questions have been outstanding for a great deal of time.


An hon. Member:: He is a jet setter.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: There is no reason that this information should be held back, curtailed or kept from parliament, simply because the Minister of Transport got his fanny burned when he answered one of my questions last year on the number of trips he made which amounted to three-quarters of a million dollars. I think it is time we learned how much of taxpayers' funds all these people have spent to become a jet set and fly all over Canada at public expense. I would like to hear the Minister of Transport reply to this point of order and explain why those questions have not been answered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-17, respecting the reorganization of Air Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have only a couple of minutes left. I just want to conclude my speech by saying, as I was at noon, that I thought the management, and indeed the Department of Transport, would find it to their benefit if they could solicit some of the expertise available from their own employees in making decisions in certain policy areas.
As a final thought, I would like to protest, on my own behalf as well as on behalf of other members, the lack of accountability implicit in this government, and the department, as exemplified by not having had the executives of Air Canada before the relevant Standing Committee of this House, that is Transport and Communications, since 1973 at which time it was only the 1972 annual report that parliamentarians were able to consider. During the past four years undoubtedly many matters of interest to the airline, to aviation and to the country could have been and would have been discussed. The people of Canada ought to know it is not the fault of Air Canada that they did not appear before the committee. The airline was ready, willing and able to do so. It is not the fault of parlia-
May 31, 1977

ment that they did not appear. It is simply the fault of the government, which does not particularly believe in accountability, even when it pertains to its own Crown corporations.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to listen to the remarks of the previous speaker. He has a great interest in Air Canada, as have many other hon. members. I, too, am concerned that the changes which are being made are not necessarily in the interest of Air Canada but rather are in the interests of civil servants and the government, who want to have more say in the operation of Air Canada. I listened with interest to the charges which were being made about the unwillingness of Air Canada to schedule flights in the maritime provinces at times which would meet the convenience of people travelling into central Canada. While 1 have no particular interest in Air Canada from that point of view, Air Canada having left my part of the country and having left much of northern Ontario and northern Quebec, I still am interested in the development of a national airline which can bring the parts of Canada which are easy to service and unite together with those areas which are not so easy to service.
There seems to be little interest on the part of the national carrier to have schedules which would provide domestic travel service which would be a unifying factor in our country. Second, it seems to me that Air Canada should have on its board of directors those people who run the airline. Others have mentioned this, particularly the previous speaker. As the previous speaker said, it may be necessary to have representatives from the civil service, if it is the intention of the government to allow the civil service to have some say in the running of the airline. If that is the case, some civil servants should be on the board of directors and should take some interest in how the airline is run. There should also be representation on a regional basis.
The airline should be able to do something it has not yet been able to do. It should be able to set up a sales agency to put together package tour arrangements, which Air Canada has totally failed to do up until now. True, Air Canada has been operating Sunflights, but it has never been able to break even. It has never been able to make any money, and it has never understood why it cannot handle tourist traffic to other countries. It is quite likely that if Air Canada were able to get into the tourist field and succeed, it would be able to afford the kind of aircraft it needs and to make better utilization of that aircraft. We can use Quebecair and Nordair as examples. Quebecair and Nordair under no circumstances could afford the type of aircraft they have if they were used only for domestic purposes. They are flying Boeing 727's, Boeing 737's and several other aircraft which they in no way could afford for their domestic travel only. They would not be able to keep up the payments on those aircraft if they depended on their domestic scheduled routes, but they have been able to utilize those aircraft at the weekends. In fact, Nordair flies each aircraft back and forth to the Caribbean four times per weekend. If tourist operators are using those aircraft, they are
Air Canada
likely filled to capacity or near capacity, which would be unlikely on a seven day basis on scheduled flights.
One thing Air Canada has never been able to do is relate its prestige to domestic needs. I am sure the government wants to have prestige aircraft flying the flag of Canada in other countries, and I am surprised at the fragmentation which has taken place in the airline. For years I have travelled Air Canada. Air Canada once went from Montreal to Ottawa, Val d'Or, Rouyn, Earlton, North Bay, Toronto and back to Montreal. It covered half the continent with one aircraft and did a reasonable job. However, that type of schedule will not carry the traffic-if it is operating twice a day-which would warrant the use of DC-9's. In fact, I doubt whether the Viscount was feasible on that run. The Viscount has been phased out. I do not know what happened at the management level of Air Canada, but obviously it should have looked at some of the ancillary areas it was going to service, and it should have provided an aircraft for those areas.
There is nothing wrong with DC-9's. Someone mentioned that he would much rather travel on a DC-8. Well, I suggest he talk to an engineer about the DC-8. He might find that it might not be as attractive to travel on that aircraft as he thinks. We should have a small aircraft, but Air Canada has never purchased one. Presently I travel on a commercial scheduled airline which flies DC-3's. There is nothing wrong with DC-3's. Perhaps new DC-3's should be built. Some of the DC-3's 1 am flying on now have a lifespan which is almost, 1 suppose, as long as my own. Many of them are Second World War aircraft, and they are doing a fairly good job. They are economic on short runs. However, in Ontario we have also had to develop a provincial government airline. I think the fact Air Canada was providing much of the rest of the country with the kind of aircraft which could fly those small scheduled runs had some merit. Air Canada now has a very expensive and normally efficient reservation system which operates by computer, and I think it does a reasonably good job. Most of the small ancillary airlines cannot provide that kind of service unless they are tied in with Air Canada. Recently some did become tied in with Air Canada.
1 fly First Air, which is a commercial operation of Bradley Air Services. Bradley is now flying an Otter between Ottawa and Montreal, to Mirabel. Because Bradley is going into Mirabel with that Otter three times a day, Air Canada is quite happy to put Bradley on the computer. First Air now goes to North Bay and Sudbury, and it is also on the computer system because of the arrangement which was made for Mirabel. It seems to me that the management of Air Canada should have a choice of what to do.
I am not happy about CP getting into the national domestic routes in Canada because I am not sure that 22 million or 23 million people can carry the overhead which is necessary to operate two international companies. Certainly CP and Air Canada are fairly large international airlines, considering the size of our country and the length of the trips those airlines have to make on scheduled runs outside this country. If we go into the international Field, we have to have aircraft which are

May 31, 1977
Air Canada
capable of doing the job. We should also be handling many domestic routes in this country, and they should be either operated in conjuction with Air Canada or in partnership with them. It was suggested some time ago that we buy into Wardair. The reason for that was not that we needed their aircraft. All we needed was Tom Ward's expertise in the field of package tourist operations. I was opposed to our buying it because I was of the opinion that rather them buying it we should take over the operation. In addition, I was frightened of Air Canada getting into any other field than flying airplanes.
This is what happened to the railroads. We allowed CNR to buy and operate hotels, to buy real estate, smelters, truck lines, and so forth. Pretty soon they were making more money out of their subsidiaries than they were out of the railroads, so they quit running the railroads. They did not put any balast on the tracks and they did not fix their running equipment. They were operating railroads on the basis of a little bit for the railroad and a whole lot for the subsidiaries which were more valuable to them. So I was opposed to Air Canada setting up subsidiary companies unless they were directly related to the running of the airline, and I am still opposed to it. It seems to me that if Air Canada is to be successful, if it is to operate for the people in general rather than for a small group of businessmen, it should concentrate wholly on running the airline.
Part of the problem stems from the businessmen. Air Canada rates have gone up tremendously. Why are members of parliament not complaining about Air Canada rates? The reason is that the government pays for the tickets. The government also pays for every businessman who travels on the airline by means of tax exemptions, so that nobody really cares about the cost of the tariff on the scheduled airlines. I am sure I do not know whether the tariff is reasonable or justifiable, but we pay for the airports and for all the facilities at the airports, for weather reports and radio control as well as all the services that are provided. All the airline does is rent space. So we should be looking at the fees for scheduled airlines and whether or not the public is getting good service for their money. It is my opinion that in many areas of this country the public is not being well served by Air Canada simply because the airline is not supplying the kind of aircraft that is needed to meet the needs of the people.
It was interesting to talk to people in western Canada on this subject. There are many westerners here today who can probably comment on the services of Air Canada. The ones I spoke to told me they could not fly on scheduled Air Canada flights between Edmonton and Calgary for two reasons-and this is something that Air Canada should consider. One reason was that the aircraft landed way out of town and it was difficult to get into town from the airport at which they were landing. Second, the airline was operating on a schedule that did not satisfy the business community or the travelling public. The last time I was in that area we travelled on what they call an airbus. You buy your ticket and stand in line for a flight that leaves every hour on the hour and comes back on the half
[Mr. Peters.)
hour. It takes off at the municipal airport right in the city, and there is not much waiting at either end.
Mention has been made of the Mirabel airport. There is an easy solution to the problem at Mirabel and one that we should consider very shortly. The advertisements you see in the newspapers from Boston are only the beginning. There are few airlines that will agree much longer to go through the hastle with their customers that they have to go through now in Mirabel where passengers have to transfer to the domestic routes at Dorval. Very few airlines will put up with that for very long. They will schedule all their flights into Montreal or into Boston where services can be provided. We made a mistake with Mirabel. This government has made lots of mistakes. I do not know whether our mistake was in building Mirabel or in keeping Dorval, but it is my honest opinion that we should either close down Dorval or close down Mirabel and operate only one airport from which passengers can travel either overseas or within the country. I do not care which airport is closed down.
It would seem to me to be more sensible to close down Dorval because we have built this monster at Mirabel and no one likes facing the fact that we made such a bad mistake that we must close down the new airport. Nevertheless, we should make a decision. There are many passengers now travelling through both Mirabel and Dorval, whereas a couple of years ago they were only travelling through Dorval. Dorval can handle the passenger traffic and, I dare say, so can Mirabel, but I suggest that one of the things that we better do very shortly is close down one of those airports and arrange for the traffic to come into the gateway of Canada, whether it be at Mirabel or Dorval so that people can transfer to domestic flights at the same airport. This would make things much simpler for people travelling with a lot of luggage. It is surprising that everyone coming from overseas has more luggage than they need, a lot more luggage than they have on domestic flights. This creates a problem if you have to travel 29 miles to reach another airport and go through the same hastle at the second airport as you did at the first one.
So I suggest that if we are really serious about helping Air Canada to continue to grow, a good way to do it is to establish a board of directors rather than having the governor in council make the decisions. The board of directors should answer directly to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). He might as well run the airline. This might facilitate some things for him. Perhaps arrangements could be made which he could not make otherwise. The board of directors should be able to make decisions for Air Canada and the minister should be aware of the troubles at Mirabel and of the ways to solve them. Secondly, Air Canada should look for a 25 to 35 passenger aircraft to replace the old Viscount. I suggest that we should not take the Viscount out of mothballs. Even the Canadian government is not rich enough to afford the gasoline that plane guzzles. That was never an efficient aircraft at any time and to get it out of mothballs would be a regressive rather than a progressive step. There are small jets today that are available at a much smaller price than a DC-9. They can handle 25 to
May 31. 1977

35 passengers. They can provide service on those runs where aircraft of this type can normally be efficient and meet the needs of the community.
I think that much of Air Canada service has to be related to passengers coming off domestic flights to the trans Canada corridor or going to the international corridor, and certainly with the expenditure we have made on accounting and computerization in Air Canada, this could be utilized by all those making connection with the service from the feeder lines. Much of that could be done by Air Canada itself. I hope that before long the Minister of Transport will give us some indication of what he will do about the Mirabel problem. 1 hope he will give some indication of what he is going to do about the problems of the regional carriers. They are providing competition in a field that I think Air Canada should be involved in, that is, package tours. Schedules in regional areas could be more efficient if they could be interrelated the way train schedules used to be. When you came to a junction you could transfer to another line within a reasonable period of time. But the airlines have not so far made any such arrangements.
I think the changes being made in accounting are worthwhile. I agree with those members who said the minister should not be afraid to ask for the assistance of members of parliament for a reference of the Air Canada annual report to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. Members would have an opportunity to make their contribution to problems in their area which do not appear to be understood by the officials of Air Canada.


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate my colleagues who have taken part in the debate and to commend them for some of their constructive suggestions. Air Canada is one of the best airlines in the world and as I look back over its 40 years of service to Canada I am proud of it. As a Canadian, I regard Canada's airline as my airline. It is owned by all Canadians. I want to see it improve. I want to see it serve Canadians better. I want to see Air Canada become an instrument for national unity and 1 want it to become an instrument to unlock the dynamics of growth in areas of regional disparity.
To achieve this purpose it becomes extremely important that the board of directors of Air Canada should have as its members persons drawn from every region of Canada. The lines of communication between government and the board of directors should be strong enough to ensure that government policies will be clearly interpreted and reflected in Air Canada's policies. At the same time, the operation of the airline should be the responsibility of the professional staff who are accountable for their performance to the board of directors.
It is important that government be plugged into the operation of our national airline to ensure that the national purpose is served and that the privileges it enjoys are properly exercised and also to prevent unfair competition by a national Crown company with regional air carriers. To achieve this purpose it
Air Canada
is not necessary and most certainly not desirable that the government should be involved in the day-to-day operations of the company. It should not inflict on the company its judgment in matters where it has less expertise.
The requirement that bylaws of the corporation must first be approved by Cabinet before they have any force has the favourable effect of giving the government an insight into the operation of the corporation and enables it to control changes contemplated by the board of directors. On the other hand, it also undermines confidence in the board of directors and inflicts on government the role of being a corporate babysitter with a mass of paperwork to do. The ponderous and foot-dragging result is that the corporate structure of Air Canada would be weakened and government would be the villain for holding Air Canada back from making decisions in time to compete effectively in the market place. I suggest that a more efficient process would be for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to have a personal representative on the board of directors-the government after all will soon appoint all directors-and this personal representative could keep the minister and the Cabinet informed of all activities of the board, including bylaw changes. It may also be possible and desirable that the minister be made an ex officio member of the board of directors.
The expanded role of Air Canada in a wider range of activities and the opening of new avenues for finance causes me to have mixed feelings. The entry into the hotel business, if it is profitable, can stimulate the air carrier segment of its business and hopefully reduce fares. On the other hand, losses in this field could have the opposite effect. If Air Canada is to compete effectively it needs a broader base of operations and the additional powers proposed in this bill. The use to which these powers are put and the degree to which the airline moves in the national interest of Canada will be the test of the quality of leadership of the people whom the government puts in charge of the airline and therefore of the government itself.
It is in my view extremely important that Mr. Justice Estey's recommendations delivered following the Air Canada inquiry of October 1975 be followed in one respect. I should like to quote the paragraph to which I refer:
The Air Canada Act should provide a channel for the government or the responsible minister to issue to the board of directors of the corporation policy directives where the national interest from time to time requires. Where the national interest requires the corporation to undertake routes and projects where it will be demonstrably impossible to operate at a profit in the commercial sense, the airline should undertake them for the account of the government and be reimbursed accordingly.
The reason I am so concerned about this section is that I am not convinced that transportation is now being used as a development tool in areas where other government departments and policies are attempting to focus on the root causes of regional disparity.
In the new summer Air Canada flight schedule, the city of Fredericton, which serves central New Brunswick, will lose a morning flight from Montreal and a return flight to Montreal at noon hour each day. This will result in the reduction of air seat capability and an equally severe reduction in air cargo transportation. Air Canada must feel this reduction is neces-

May 31, 1977
Air Canada
sary to cure its economic problems but it may well create them for people in New Brunswick.
The hard-nosed decision to retrench air service to central New Brunswick is a serious rejection by the federal government of the use of transportation as a development tool. It makes a mockery of the government's commitment to a policy of regional development. Indeed, this cutback was undertaken without the prior knowledge of or notice being given to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard). The war on economic disparity cannot be won in Canada by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion itself. Neither can it be won by our national airline. It requires the concentration, the combined efforts and the focus of all departments and Crown agencies, on the problem. It is not enough to have DREE spend millions of dollars on worthwhile projects in New Brunswick and other areas of Canada if the effect is to be eroded by the failure of the government to focus its fiscal, monetary, tariff and transportation policies on the same goal.
Fredericton will hold a large number of conventions this year, including over 5,000 people to the Learned Societies' conference for which Air Canada plans to put on extra flights. My initial calculation indicated that some 48 extra flights would be required; my last inquiry indicated that at least 20 were already sold out and ticketed. Extra flights were required for the graduation at the University of New Brunswick. These are only two of literally dozens of conventions and conferences that will take place during the tourist season in New Brunswick. Because the provincial and municipal governments in New Brunswick are working with the federal government to creater a climate attractive to Canadians who wish to invest in tourism-one of the principal businesses in New Brunswick- we can see evidence of new developments.
New Brunswick is trying to move ahead. For example, a Howard Johnson's motel is just about ready to open its doors in Fredericton and what happens? Because the government does not have the structure or the desire or the knowledge, our national airline celebrates the opening of the tourist season in New Brunswick with a serious cutback in facilities. It is not the fault of the airline. I realize full well Air Canada cannot be expected to fly empty planes around the sky and I do not want them to do that, but I feel the government should enable Air Canada to balance what appears to be an outstanding tourist year against an investment in our tourist industry and the development of our region.
I would like to see the accent put on more passengers at lower fares for the same or better dollar volume. We are already losing some passenger and cargo service to Delta Airlines in Maine. We have on occasion filled the flight being cancelled. On April 20 for example, it was over-sold and had to leave some passengers on the ground. Air charter seats allotted to our area were booked before the advertisements ran out. I had hoped the profits Air Canada makes from the extra flights put on to serve the Learned Societies' conference and other conventions and conferences would enable Air Canada to maintain its existing direct air ties between Montreal and Fredericton at least for the tourist season.
Excluding Eastern Provincial Airways, the Air Canada retrenchment means that our national airline will have only one flight leaving Fredericton from Montreal which connects with ongoing flights west. A later flight terminates in Montreal.
We have no rail passenger service to New Brunswick's capital city and the cutback in air service is a serious blow. It may be necessary for Air Canada to break even on its profit and loss account; but I wish the government could enable it this once to invest in New Brunswickers and display its faith in our ability to attract visitors to this most beautiful part of Canada.
I feel also that in the national interest we should do everything we possibly can to enable Canadians to travel to all parts of this great country and get to know and understand one another. There is no magic formula or blueprint for national unity. There is only human decency, understanding and tolerance-these are the things that made our country and these are the things that can preserve it. We do, however, have to learn to communicate it and one of the ways we can communicate is through our national airline operating at a break even point with unprofitable lines clearly designated and subsidized by our government.
I like the amendments to the act which will enable the government to provide compensation for unprofitable routes in the national interest. I should like also to see the department of Regional Economic Expansion and our provincial governments directly involved in the selection of the routes to be compensated. I feel that this can be accomplished without undue interference or involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company.
One final matter: I should like to see the Auditor General much more involved with the Air Canada audit. Perhaps an external audit under the general direction of the Auditor General should be considered, but I am not clear whether the Auditor General has the power to act as a joint auditor. I think it would be a good idea if the Auditor General could direct external auditors to pay particular attention to some point or, at his option, personally intercede to direct the external auditors; or with his own staff, he might expand the audit into any area he considers necessary. This point perhaps can be taken up in committee.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to all that has been achieved over the past 40 years by Air Canada and hope, when the new act is proclaimed in its final form, that it will enable Canada's airline to fly the skies safely, and make a great and effective contribution to national unity and to resolving the problems of areas of regional disparity. I certainly hope the contribution parliament makes to our national airline will enable it to have as much faith in us as we have in it.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate. I will not delay unduly second reading of this bill. Actually, I think I am the

May 31, 1977

last speaker on this bill on this side of the House. The debate on this measure has been excellent and hon. members have exposed many points which they think merit consideration, and have voiced their concerns. Though we all consider this bill important, we should note that the government first introduced the bill on October 28, seven months ago. Surely it could have given it higher legislative priority, particularly since we do not often have the opportunity to examine the workings of this large and important Crown corporation which affects many Canadians one way or another. It is unfortunate as well that the minister saw fit to bring forward this bill at the very time when the transport committee is travelling in eastern Canada, examining various transportation problems in the Atlantic provinces. I suggest the minister has shown contempt for the work of the committee, many members of which would like to participate in this debate. Owing to the demands of travel to Atlantic Canada, they are unable to participate.
I am greatly concerned because there is no provision for regular review of Air Canada's activities. I think a committee of the House last considered an annual report of the corporation back in 1973. Since Air Canada is a large corporation, operating with an investment of approximately $1 billion of taxpayer money, and since it is our national air carrier and carries many Canadians, surely it behooves the government to order the company to appear regularly before a parliamentary committee and thus be accountable regularly to its shareholders, the people of this country. I hope, when this bill is in committee, we shall be able to enshrine either in the legislation or in some regulation a requirement for Air Canada to appear every year before the appropriate parliamentary committee. At least, it ought to appear when so ordered by that committee. Such provision would serve not only the interests of members of parliament and the House, but would be beneficial to Air Canada. I would improve the efficiency of Air Canada's operations and of its management.
Air Canada is often criticized for its service, and I suggest many complaints and criticism are justifiable. However, I suggest if Air Canada's management were to appear before a committee regularly, it could set the record straight and answer charges and criticisms levelled against the corporation from time to time which are not justifiable. Many hon. members in the last few days have criticized Air Canada for its inadequacies and shortcomings. 1 point out that we criticize the airline with the hope of improving its operations. Our criticism was not meant to be destructive. In that connection let me say that, though I have often criticized Air Canada in the past, I think the airline's senior management under its newly appointed chief executive officer and president, Mr. Claude Taylor, is doing a good job. Since taking over the running of the corporation, Mr. Taylor has done well. He and his associates have made decisions which have made our national airline function reasonably efficiently. The airline's employee morale has improved. Drastic steps were taken to cut costs, improve efficiency, improve the utilization rate and increase productivity. By and large, the new president and his
Air Canada
board have made determined efforts to make Air Canada profitable.
The people of Canada hold various views about Air Canada. The airlines national task is not an easy one to fulfil. Many Canadians expect much of Air Canada. Bearing this in mind 1 say that, on balance, the new management has done a good job. It listened to and dealt with criticisms. However, no airline is perfect.
Many hon. members have complained about scheduling and frequency of service, with reason, I suggest. Although we complain, we must remember that one must balance costs, the cost of utilization against the cost of energy. I know, as well, that the Commissioner for Official Languages has used Air Canada as his favourite punching bag. The president of Air Canada has been preoccupied with attempts to implement some of the recommendations made in the Official Language Commissioner's report. A recent report makes 146 recommendations. Some of them arose from a recent study of the corporation's eastern region headquarters, and some appear unrealistic. Actually, some of them will tend to hurt the morale of employees and the operations of the airline, and may go far to erode the good will built up under Mr. Taylor's leadership. I hope, perhaps while we are considering this bill or when the committee has the chance to examine the company's annual report, that we can explore the recommendations and criticisms the Commissioner of Official Languages has levelled at Air Canada.
We have heard only one side of the story. I know the people working in ticket offices and on counters have been somewhat apprehensive about recommendations the Commissioner for Official Languages has made, and are even more apprehensive in case some of them will be implemented.
As others said, this year we celebrate the fortieth anniversary of Air Canada's establishment. During the past 40 years, no fundamental amendments have been made to the Air Canada Act. It is fair to say, therefore, that this bill is long overdue. In the 40 years since the first Air Canada Act was proclaimed, the corporation and the society in which it operates have undergone phenomenal growth and change. In that sense, one of the major failings of this particular piece of legislation is that nowhere in the bill is it spelled out what the mission and the role of Air Canada is intended to be.
It has been cited time and time again by former executive officers and particularly emphasized by the former chairman of Air Canada, Mr. Yves Pratte, who had this to say in testimony before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on June 22, 1971, and I quote:
The basic problem in so far as we at the management level are concerned is that we do not know what the mission of Air Canada is. We wish we knew. It is awfully difficult to manage any organization when one does not know what the purpose of the organization is: when you are told on the one hand that the purpose of the organization is to be as profitable as any private corporation and, on the other hand, that you are to provide service at all cost.

May 31, 1977
Air Canada
The basic problem is for the government to define the role and mission of Air Canada. If that is defined, I am satisfied that we can do the job; but it is not up to us to decide what our role is.
Other speakers have pointed this out. Surely this is an appropriate time to define the role and the mission of Air Canada. Is it to provide a service at cost or is it to show a profit? Surely this legislation should provide that direction.
If Air Canada is to be a profit oriented corporation, as recent policy statements by the government seem to imply, the provisions of this bill should clearly state that. It would have the advantage of giving potential investors more confidence in the commercial orientation of this corporation. It would clear up the somewhat unnecessary ambiguities and uncertainties which are in this bill. In this connection, I want to quote somewhat extensively from a document entitled "The Evolution of Transportation Policy in Canada". It was written by Mr. John R. Baldwin who at one time was the president of Air Canada. He is dealing with the operations of two major Crown corporations, Air Canada and CNR. He states at page 41 and I quote:
There is no clear public definition why it is important that they-
That is referring to Air Canada and CNR.
-be publicly-owned or what the government expects from each that is different from private competitors. Greater responsiveness to government policies, willingness to act as a "model" corporation, and the need for a governmental instrument are generalities that have been used but mean little unless defined more specifically in a complete context of goals. Air Canada, worried by this situation a few years ago, prepared and submitted for approval to its minister a set of objectives. The company was told they were satisfactory but I would have been happier if they had become a public document opened for parliamentary debate. This could have resulted in some concurrence on the nature and purposes of public ownership, on corporate objectives, and on public expectations. The need is made greater by the insertion in the NTA of transportation principles with their commercial orientation.
I hoped something of this sort would emerge in the new Air Canada legislation but the bill submitted for first reading is silent on this point. An opportunity remains for the matter to be brought forward in parliamentary debate. I believe the same comment on value of broad parliamentary agreement on goals and objectives exists for CNR as well. I am aware that not all management may agree, some preferring the greater flexibility of a purely internal definition of objectives.
My attitude is influenced by other aspects of the first public draft of the new Air Canada legislation. While it would (or in some cases could, since permission from government would be needed) give Air Canada badly needed broader powers and improved capital structure, about 80 per cent of the principal operative clauses reserve a discretionary authority for the Governor in Council. This is a tremendous amount of power to place in the hands of the bureaucracy. It could nullify some objectives of the bill or allow intervention in management matters to a degree that would reverse the hitherto good record of government in regard to reasonable freedom for management. The Board of Directors, whose powers and role are nowhere defined in the legislation, could find themselves with little in the way of a useful role. My fear, incidentally, primarily centres on the temptation for the bureaucracy to intervene in management even more than of the intent of the Governor in Council to misuse its authority. I cannot believe that this situation will pass unnoticed.
That summarizes some of the concerns that members on this side of the House have expressed in connection with this legislation. Coming from an authority like Mr. Baldwin, it certainly deserves some very serious consideration. I hope that during the time we consider this bill that this passage will be considered in a serious manner.
The bill provides authorization for Canada to engage in activities which are not currently permitted. This act brings the question of the role of the corporation into even greater light. The proposed act broadens the capacities and activities which the company may undertake, both within and outside Canada. Aside from operating the business of an air carrier, there are references to hotels and other accommodation, surface vehicles and facilities for the transportation and housing of persons, goods and mail, services, facilities and equipment for organizing and conducting tours, catering and providing other passenger-related services, including reservations for transportation and accommodation, and computer and teleprocessing systems and technical, advisory and consulting services.
Generally the increases in these activities are good for the company. They will give it an opportunity to provide a more complete travel package. The act does this, and it is something that Mr. Baldwin referred to in his critique of the bill. All these things have to be authorized by the governor-in-council. There are two matters of concern in that connection. First, there is the potential danger of undue political interference or influence and bureaucratic intervention. Second, there is concern that it could allow the company to extend into "for-hire" trucking services, something about which the Canadian Trucking Association has expressed justifiable concern.
The Canadian Trucking Association argues that there is no reason for Crown corporations functioning in the rail or air mode to engage in "for-hire" trucking in competitions as it were to the primary function of said corporation. "For-hire" trucking has proved to be one mode where private enterprise can provide adequate service and effective competition in practically all parts of the country. I know the minister has responded. He attempted to allay the fears of the Canadian Trucking Association in this area. However, I do not believe that his response and explanation are satisfactory. We will consider that area quite thoroughly when this bill gets into committee.
Bill C-17 brings about an authority and mechanisms for transferring the ownership of Air Canada from CN to the government directly.
I think it is fair to say that the CN connection has in the past had the effect of allowing Air Canada management to effectively circumvent parliamentary control. Air Canada has received money from CN rather than directly from parliament, as well as advances of funds; a significant amount of money has been advanced in this way without reference to parliament and without any degree of accountability. The principle of trying to separate Air Canada from the CNR is one which we in this party have advocated for some time and we are very pleased that it is contained in this legislation. The former minister of transport, now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) made reference to this back in 1969.

May 31, 1977

A large part of the bill deals with the financing of Air Canada. Authorizing more common shares is rather a nonissue at present, but it may have some bearing in the future if some or all of Air Canada is transferred to the private sector. Allowing the corporation to borrow on the private market would seem to be a step in the right direction. We note that all borrowing must first be approved by the Minister of Finance. It would seem that government control is being extended into the day to day operations of the airline, and this is something at which we must take a serious second look.
The government seems to have followed Judge Estey's recommendation only half way. He said in his report that the position of the board of directors as the ultimate authority in the corporation should be improved by enlarging the board and forming an executive committee of the board. The management set-up of Air Canada has been changed to allow for this change, but the rest of the bill, in my view, circumvents it in spirit. Clause 7 is a good example. We read that all bylaws made by the board have to be approved by order in council. This crops up again in clause 8 wherein it is said that Air Canada should provide a channel for the government to issue to the board policy directives where the national interest requires.
It would appear that, here again, the government has completely lost the spirit of the Estey report. Clause 8 gives the government sweeping powers to control Air Canada. Simply stated, the act tells Air Canada to comply with any directives which it is given. No limits are placed upon what directions are permitted. To my mind, this is inexcusable. A provision in clause 9 states that the governor in council may-it is not obliged to, but it may-pay compensation to Air Canada for operating unprofitable routes in the national interest. This, surely, should be clarified. We should be told how the losses are to be calculated and how the operation is to be carried out.
A number of clauses require clarification. In some cases we find ambiguities and contradictions in the legislation, and we hope we shall be able to refine those clauses so as to make them consistent with what should be the principal thrust of the legislation. The question of auditing has been raised by other members. This issue raises the question of political pork-barrelling. Surely, if the management of Air Canada is to manage, they should have discretion in this particular area.
In summary, the principle of the bill is, in our view, long overdue and we certainly support it. We feel that the wording has taken it past the major recommendations of Judge Estey in connection with the revamping of the corporation. This is one of the first occasions on which we have had a clear analysis of the workings of the airline. We feel the bill grants undue power to the governor in council and that it could amount to what one might refer to as a supermanagement level of the public service to oversee the normal management of Air Canada, and we have some apprehensions about that.
These features could tend to transform the corporation into an agency of government rather than a commercial enterprise. Subject to appropriate government directives and control measures and accountability procedures-and I must say that
Air Canada
the word "appropriate" must be stressed here-the direction and control of the corporation should be vested in the board and in the management, and I cannot reiterate enough the fact that the corporation should be accountable to parliament, to the House of Commons, through the relevant committee.
I do not think Air Canada should be called upon to pay for some of the sins which have been committed by other Crown corporations. We have no choice but to accept as given that Air Canada is, and should be, professionally and responsibly managed. If that is not the case, the government has the means of changing the board and the management. Nevertheless, the government should not tie the hands of the company or set up a control mechanism which would demoralize the corporation and make it unattractive to those with the skills necessary to operate it at its best level.
I believe that if the corporation is given permission to manage itself within a defined set of government policies similar to the operation of a private airline and consistent with good business practice, without undue government interference, the nickname "Err Canada" may very well disappear for good. Indeed, Canada's national airline might well become an airline of which all Canadians can be proud.
We are pleased to see that this bill will now move to committee. We shall, naturally, have some amendments to introduce at that stage. We hope we shall have an opportunity to call witnesses to obtain their views and clarification of certain points. We hope, also, that the minister will be receptive to some of our suggestions, because it is in our interests to make the bill a better piece of legislation so that the Crown corporation can go forth and become a transportation entity of which we as Canadians can be proud.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the time of the House for a few minutes to put forward some thoughts on Air Canada. It has long been a point of thoughtful observers that if the federal government ever got around to making a start in seriously cutting down spending, a useful place to start would be Air Canada. Air Canada has become fat and lazy. It has a monopoly of 75 per cent of cross-country routes, and one would have to be a very placid traveller to call the service provided much more than an indifferent one.
It is obvious we should have competition wherever possible, and in connection with the airlines it is one area which could certainly be more meaningful. But I note that the head of Air Canada has always decried the American practice of having a number of airlines competing with one another. I think it ill behooves the head of Air Canada to express such an opinion, since Air Canada has a monopoly of 75 per cent of the cross-Canada travel, come what may. CP Air and the five regional airlines would certainly be willing and able to play a more extensive role than that allowed them by the federal regulatory authority.

May 31, 1977
Air Canada
Although there is much competition in the field of railways, there is a place for it, too, in the matter of air travel. The routes which Air Canada finds least attractive are still served by private carriers at a profit, which just goes to show that Air Canada does not need to use the argument that it has "milk runs" which do not pay and hence cause a deficit. The government has protected Air Canada and set it apart from potential competitors. That may have been necessary at the beginning. It reports directly to parliament while other air carriers are governed strictly by the CTC. Air Canada, by and large, is given the most profitable routes while other airlines must be content with routes which the national airline does not want. Because Air Canada has been so zealously protected by the government, it has not been efficient or cost conscious and certainly compares unfavourably with U.S. airlines of comparable size.
Air Canada has really had everything its own way. If it wanted a route, the regulatory authority favoured its pet. An example of this was provided when Nordair applied in 1973 for a set service linking Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Ottawa and Montreal. It was a one-day flight. The CTC turned down the application when Air Canada undertook to provide comparable service, but the scheduling was such that it required a two-evening stay in Montreal for a one-day business trip.
The influence of Air Canada on the negotiators in the Department of Transport can certainly be noted. In recent trans-border allocations of routes Air Canada received 19 out of 20, the lone exception going to CP Air. In my own province of Manitoba, Transair would have been immeasurably helped by having at least one route allocated to them. It is significant that three U.S. airlines are flying out of Winnipeg south to Chicago, Minneapolis and Denver, with no Canadian alternative. As I understand it, the possibility of CP Air or Transair being allocated routes in other parts of Canada was under negotiation, and Air Canada has not even taken up some of the routes negotiated on their behalf. I feel that this crass cringing to the wishes of Air Canada by the Department of Transport is one reason CP Air has been failing to show a profit and is undergoing hard times. In any case, Air Canada always tends to show a loss.
For western Canadians, Air Canada has come to signify a largely eastern dominated airline, bringing with it the problem of language. One of the problems faced by Air Canada employees in the city of Montreal, which is its major base, is use of language. The Official Languages Act provides that in any public facility there should be a person available who is competent to speak one of the two official languages. As I say, use of one language or the other in maintenance work at Air Canada has now become a bone of contention. As I understand Bill 1, the Quebec legislature wishes the language of work in Quebec to be French. I have no quarrel with that, but it does create problems for a national airline like Air Canada. Should its employees be required to work only in French, and would this detract from their efficiency and the movement of Air Canada employees across the country? So far as cabin crews

are concerned, we would all agree that facility in the second language should be available at all times. But does this mean that all cabin crews must originate from Montreal, to the detriment of potential cabin crews in other parts of the country?
One of the ways to solve the problem of competition would be to revoke Air Canada's 75 per cent cross-country monopoly which it has. This could be done in stages so Air Canada could adjust to the increased competition. It may not be able to retain its 75 per cent of the traffic. This bill seems to make very doubtful the proposition that Air Canada will be any more efficient or economic than it has been in the past. As I have said, the airline is associated essentially with eastern Canada; western Canadians look on CP Air as their airline. Pacific Western Airlines is also expanding and becoming a larger regional airline. I hope that this bill will answer some of the questions concerning Air Canada, but I doubt that it will.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.

Hon. Ron Basford (for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: that Bill C-47, to amend the Export Development Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Stanley Ronald Basford: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, this bill, Bill C-47, to amend the Export Development Act increases the maximum liabilities for export credits insurance and guarantees. Specifically, by amending section 26 of the act the maximum liability ceiling on insurance written for the corporation's account would be increased from $750 million to $2.5 billion. By amending section 28, the ceiling on insurance written for the account of the government would be increased from $750 million to $1 billion. This amendment to the Export Development Act will raise the present statutory limit for insurance and guarantees such that EDC may meet the full requirements of Canadian exporters through to the end of 1978.
All hon. members are aware that success in international trade is absolutely essential to the health of the Canadian economy. The export credits insurance program of EDC is a critical factor in facilitating exports. Mr. Speaker, some 25 per cent of our gross national product is attributable to Canada's exports to foreign countries. The more successful our exporters are, the more our manufacturers will be required to manufac-
May 31, 1977

ture more goods in order to meet their requirements, and in turn will be able to provide more employment, which is so needed at this time, for many, many Canadians.
The bill has had thorough discussion in committee covering all aspects of the operations of the Export Development Corporation. The co-operation and understanding of the importance of this measure by all members of the committee has resulted in an expeditious passage. Therefore, I would recommend that Bill C-47, to amend the Export Development Act, as reported from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be passed by this House.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated by the parliamentary secretary, this bill had three sessions with the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. The fact that it required three sessions should be a salutary lesson to a number of government agencies. In this particular case the government somehow or other waited until the last minute to schedule the bill before the House. Then it went over to committee, where committee members were met with the plea that the pipeline was more than full in so far as credit insurance was concerned.
I think it is wrong to say that any delay in the passage of the bill might inhibit the operations of the agency. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) will have something to say about that, but I would like to indicate that I do not think it is the proper way to operate the shop. It was clearly understood and foreseeable, as was indicated by the chairman and other officers of the corporation, that because of increased dollar values due to inflation, not only in Canada but abroad, the then existing ceilings on loans and credit insurance were inadequate for the purposes of the corporation. With a little foresight we would have had an avoidance of this procedure.
In Great Britain and other countries there may be a wall of paper built around the operations of parallel institutions; but in the United States, on the other hand, it is quite open to determine who obtained credit insurance, for what purpose, what country was involved and what parties were involved. The same thing applies to loans. In so far as the government of Canada is concerned, it is high time to emulate it. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is trying to impress upon the whole operation of government a right to information. We should not have the situation where somebody in a government agency at some director level, or at the assistant deputy minister level or the deputy minister level can say, "It would not be in the government's interests if we let anyone know what goes on. That would be sacrosanct". There has to be a good deal more information put out.
We did get some information. In the end, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and his associates were as co-operative as they could be under the circumstances, but square one was so far down the line that other agencies which are going to come before parliament in the foreseeable future should take note of what the opposition is going to insist upon. We have a right to insist. Their operations are not going to be sacrificed
Export Development Act
or damaged in any way. Frankly, this bill took three days in committee merely to get that point across.
In so far as the operations are concerned, we know this agency is vital to Canadian trade. Canadian trade is in a tough spot. Many of our commodities are being priced out of the market by some darned foolishness at the productive levels, in government policies and in tax policies. They are hard-pressed to sell. Then there are great crocodile tears from some industries where employment has gone soft. All one has to say to those people doing the greatest crying is, "Look to your own actions in this regard".
One has to say, also, "How much have you been the author of the wrongs and the ills of your own industry? Let us see where the competitive costs are. It is not the government's role to subsidize in order to get into foreign market". This is a form of government subsidy. We have to practice it in the worldwide markets because other nations do it. If the operation of this corporation did not exist, and if these facilities were not available to Canadian business, I would say there would be a most appreciable decline in Canadian export trade and, naturally, in Canadian industry. Then we would see who would be doing the crying and the moaning.
I hope this bill will get third reading by five o'clock. The reports of the committee indicate to the members of the House information which is necessary. It being a short bill with a limited purpose, as far as I am concerned, having established the point about the right to information and that government should mend its ways with regard to the timing of these bills, I am quite prepared to recommend to hon. members that this bill be passed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, members of this House should bear in mind that when we are referring to the Export Development Corporation we refer to one of the largest Crown corporations that this government has under its control. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has indicated that we caught the government attempting to slip through the substance of what we have before us in Bill C-47 as a $1 item. I think their actions were wrong. They attempted to circumvent parliament, the committees of parliament and the House itself.
In requiring and asking for the ruling the Speaker gave that the $1 item was not proper we have at least secured the precedent of ensuring that the government in future, when they wish to raise the ceilings with respect to loan limits in EDC or the insurance ceilings in EDC, must do it in a proper way, and that is by amendment to the EDC legislation itself. Having said that and having once again agreed that we do not have any serious misgivings concerning the insurance side of EDC's activities, there is a caveat which I would like to mention later.
I would like to reiterate that we do have very serious questions concerning the financing activity which has become so much the lifeblood of EDC. We have come to the point
6126

May 31, 1977
Export Development Act
where we have to start asking very basic questions. Is it in the long-term interest of Canada that EDC give soft loan financing, for example, to Poland to allow that country to establish a pulp and paper industry on the strength of our credit? As far as pulp and paper exports are concerned, world competition is becoming more and more competitive, and yet we find-this was brought out in the committee-that EDC had little hesitation in going to the Bank of Warsaw in Poland and signing an agreement to lend Poland $108.7 million to help finance the purchase of equipment and related services for pulp and paper complexes in that country. We cannot get the EDC to identify what interest rate it put on that loan. We understand it is probably in the range of 7 per cent to perhaps 8.5 per cent, but we know that starting possibly as late as January, 1981, the bank in Warsaw will be given ten years to repay that loan.
I cite that as an example of the activities which EDC has started to finance, and I think a serious question must be raised as to whether those who are currently in charge of EDC, which is under the direct supervision of the government, are being prudent in making loans to a country such as Poland with a view to helping it establish a pulp and paper industry which will be competitive with our own pulp and paper activities.
During the second reading debate of this bill we indicated our basic support for its provisions. It really only raises the insurance liability ceilings of EDC. As I have said, we have always felt that the insurance side of EDC was the more credible aspect of the activities of EDC, and we believe the change in the insurance provisions is justified. However, I said that there is a caveat. In the committee there was the startling revelation that comparatively few companies in Canada are sharing the bulk of the benefits as far as the insurance activities of EDC are concerned. In 1976, 50 corporations secured insurance commitments from EDC, for a total liability of $278.9 million. That, incidentally, represented about 60 per cent of the total insurance liabilities underwritten by EDC in that year. It is pertinent to ask ourselves whether that is equitable. Is EDC doing all in its power to ensure that comparatively small concerns get the benefit of export credit insurance to a greater extent than is now being awarded to those companies?
I ask that because if we look over the list it is rather startling to see where the insurance was actually written. We were only given ranges. In spite of the fact that EDC is a Crown corporation, apparently we were not entitled to know the precise insurance policies which were written with, for example, MacMillan Bloedel. But it is interesting to note that in 1976-in fact, for the past five years-MacMillan Bloedel has been number one on the hit parade as far as insurance commitment is concerned. In 1976 that company alone received an underwriting of $30 million to $40 million. As we can see from the figures I initially gave, that is more than 10 per cent of the total business written by EDC on the export insurance side alone. Canadian Cellulose Limited, and ATCO (Eastern) Limited both received insurance underwritings of $20 million to $30 million apiece. Seaboard Lumber Sales

Company Limited and British Columbia Forest Products Limited received such insurance commitments in the range of $15 million to $20 million. The Steel Company of Canada Limited, and St. Anne Pulp and Paper Company Limited received commitments of $10 million to $15 million.
I could go through the list and indicate that $5 million to $10 million in liabilities was awarded to Campotex Limited; Gulf Oil (Canada); Lewis, Keefer and Penfield Limited; and Atlas Steels Limited, a division of Rio Algom Limited. It is obvious that EDC finds it comparatively easy to put out huge commitments for the benefit of such corporations, and our basic question is: Is EDC doing all in its power to ensure that comparatively small companies get a fair amount of assistance which should be going to them as opposed to relatively large corporations?
Dealing with this subject in the committee Mr. V. G. McKay, vice-president of finance, Export Development Corporation, stated the following:
Of the top 50 policyholders of which you have a list in the short-term section of the insurance division, approximately 60 per cent of the liability of the corporation is represented in those 50 names.
I have referred to some of those 50 names. Then after the companies had been identified I stated the following:
About 60 per cent of the total amount insured by EDC in 1976 went to 50 corporations. It totalled about $250 million-
It was actually some $270 million, which I referred to earlier.
-which means on the average they received about $5 million per company, or per concern. The top range, which is presumably MacMillan Bloedel Limited, got between $30 million to $40 million in total liabilities. Is that pattern, what we may assume for the four other years that we had before us, 1972 to 1975, roughly the experience of EDC, that the top 50 have been getting about 60 per cent of the total insurance and the ranges I have referred to are roughly that?
Mr. John A. MacDonald, chairman of the EDC, replied: "Yes". Mr. Chase-Casgrain, vice-president of the corporation in charge of insurance, replied: "Yes, I think that would be an accurate statement, Mr. Stevens". I think it is important that we put on the record that in truth a tremendous amount of the insurance activity of the EDC benefits a comparatively small number of companies. I find it inconsistent that not only is it going for the benefit of those companies-and I point out that many of the companies I referred to are big pulp and paper companies in Canada- but we find the contradiction of EDC, through their financing arm, through their lending activities, going to a bank in a country such as Poland and lending $100 million to help them set up a pulp and paper company in Poland, which in turn will presumably compete with such companies as MacMillan Bloedel who feel they need the type of insurance I have been referring to in order to sell their goods around the world. Surely there is some inconsistency in our making a $100 million loan to Poland to help them get into the pulp and paper industry so they can compete with the very pulp and paper companies to which we are giving insurance coverage to help them sell their goods around the world.
May 31, 1977

So far 1 have touched mainly on the insurance side of EDC activities because that, frankly, is the part that is covered by the bill before us raising the limits. But on this side of the House we have felt much less comfortable with the financing side of EDC than with the insurance side. The loan activities of EDC deserve a much closer scrutiny than they have been receiving, and we would like to put forward a few of our concerns, if we may, on this matter, that is, the lending activity of EDC, on the record.
We find the EDC is extending hundreds of millions of dollars in credit for the benefit of a select few countries and eventually we might have to write off substantial portions of these loans. Unfortunately, this will be done with little or no recourse or review. In a sense, you might say that it is typical of this government's actions. They blunder, they make mistakes, they act irresponsibly, such as in this case when they lend money, and subsequently we will find two years, five years or ten years from now, when these loans are not being repaid, that somehow the government will present a new nationalization. They will say, "We have a problem. We must accept a write-off against our current budgetary position", and they will step in, if they are still in power, and say, "Give us the credit, now, for clearing up the mess".
The reason we on this side of the House wish to draw attention to the irregularities and irresponsibilities in EDC is that we realize it will be this party as the government of Canada that will have to clear up some of the mess that will be left by these EDC type loans to which I have referred. In a sense, it is very typical of this government's attitude concerning the so-called national unity question. Surely, the government of the last nine years have created many of the problems in Canada that have led to a spirit of disunity. Their economic mismanagement has been so tragic as to trigger the unemployment and inflation that we have. It is natural that some people are now talking about a better system or even about some type of separation. But let us never forget that it is this government that in the past nine years has created the fertile ground for those feelings to spring from. Yet now we find how ludicrous it is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and even certain of his cabinet ministers, are pretending that they are the people to unify the nation and set it all right again.
In no way is the Canadian public vulnerable to such a lie. The responsibility must be pinned where it should be pinned, and that is on the government for their gross mismanagement of the economic and other affairs of this country. That is why I am so concerned about the irresponsibility that is taking place with respect to financing through EDC. Only last weekend we had the government House leader gratuitously offering a write-off of some $250 million with respect to debts owed by other countries to this country. How nice it is to casually say that we will write off that money. But let me emphasize that that type of write-off is only the beginning of what may happen with regard to some of the loans that are being made by EDC. Further write-offs will be required. Later in my remarks today I want to suggest that it is time the government
Export Development Act
started to reserve those write-offs in their budgetary figures that will occur with respect to some of the so-called soft loans that EDC is making.
We have already seen how the government tried to slip $2 billion in additional authorized EDC insurance liability through the House as a $1 item. Both my colleague and I have referred to it. We opposed this, and the bill before us is a result of the objections we had at that time to that sleight of hand. But the sleight of hand continues, I suggest, especially, as 1 have said, in the loan activities of EDC.
It is not a partisan pronouncement that I am making. The Auditor General himself has expressed concern about some of the write-offs that are developing and showing already in EDC. Let me quote from page 42 of the last report of the Auditor General, dated March 23. He stated:
The future economic and political conditions in some of the countries where the corporation has made loans are unpredictable and accordingly possible losses to the corporation are not susceptible to accurate measurement.
We find that with a little juggling and accounting gymnastics-the polite term is "rescheduling"-the government is able to carry some $61 million in defaulted loans by simply rewriting them as new or extended loans. What a convenient term! If any of us, for example, get into default with our bank, how nice it would be to merely go to the bank and suggest that they reschedule. By rescheduling, all that is meant is that you take the defaulted loan, you add accrued interest, issue a new note, and say it is now current. That is exactly the type of game that EDC has been playing with respect to over $60 million of the loans now on their books. When we questioned this practice in committee, the president of EDC, John A. MacDonald, told us that although rescheduling was necessary in some instances, the corporation in fact-
-did not make loans to a country that has been rescheduled for some considerable period of time.
What Mr. MacDonald was referring to was the simple fact that perhaps he was a little embarrassed. It was so obvious that they were carrying loans that had been rescheduled. He hastened to assure us that if a country has got into that plight, the rescheduled loans are needed and they do not make fresh loans to that country. When we checked, as we did in committee, we found that this considerable period of time referred to by Mr. MacDonald is in many cases much shorter than one would expect. Pakistan, for example, had rescheduled loans totalling $26.3 million in 1976, yet we find that early in this year, on January 27, the EDC advanced another $1.4 million to support export sales to that country.
There are also other examples, such as the case of the Philippines which has also apparently worked its way back into EDC's good graces. In the Philippines we have financed another $1.7 million, even though that country has had to reschedule $7.4 million of previous loans. It is not that we oppose this type of generosity to struggling nations but, rather, that we are concerned about the mounting payments that will have to be made by both the nations that I have referred to, other nations and Canada, as debt is piled upon debt.
80016-47%

May 31, 1977
Export Development Act
It is time we examined our goals in this area and re-evaluated our policies. As the cycle of default mounts in the world, the ability of the Export Development Corporation to promote export trade is less feasible. At home we have a federal government that in the current year is running up a deficit of $7.2 billion-a record deficit of staggering proportions in light of last year's deficit of only $5 billion. This is the same federal government that has allowed our trade to deteriorate to a deficit position, as far as manufactured end products are concerned, of some $10 billion. This is the same government that has been so oblivious to date about our current account deficit of $4.3 billion and which now appears to blithely turn its back on mounting default being incurred with respect to loans previously made to certain countries.
Let me put it this way, Mr. Speaker. Domestically we have a government that has incurred a deficit this year of $7.1 billion; externally we have a government that is living with deficits of between $4 billion and $5 billion on current account and which, in effect, is encouraging corporations and provinces to borrow sufficiently from foreign sources to cover that kind of deficit. Most important in relation to Bill C-47, we also have the EDC directing loans to support export sales, but the loans themselves will not be repaid in their entirety in future years. That is the picture we have before us-three levels of debt being piled on debt.
If I remember correctly, at committee it was revealed that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40 per cent of all manufacturing trade from Canada not going to the United States was underwritten by the EDC at the present time. Some place along the line we have to see the significance of this measure. Granted, we want work for Canadians today, and if financing is needed we can understand the desire of the government to help. But let us not delude ourselves. We must realize that in order to generate $1 million worth of work, the EDC is lending $1 million to some country for up to 15 years and that probably a substantial portion of that amount will never be repaid.
The more this indirect subsidization snowballs, the higher the probability of default and the more we have loaded debt upon debt. For the sake of an export sale today we are literally jeopardizing jobs for future Canadians. The government should begin now to set up meaningful reserves against this type of loan so that it will not be so hard to digest in future years.
In looking over the activities of the EDC we must also question the wisdom of soft loans to communist bloc nations. We have seen EDC advance financing to Yugoslavia, Poland, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria. In one case the EDC advanced $250 million. A loan was advanced to a pulp and paper operation in Poland, yet the president of EDC admitted that it is likely this operation would be a significant competitor with our own pulp and paper industry. He justified the loan on the basis that if we did not lend the funds, somebody else would and in effect we would end up with no loaf as opposed to half a loaf. I suggest it is

shortsighted to subject this nation to the debt load the government has assumed. It is not in the best interests of Canada to continue such shaky loan activity to support international trade.
At committee we asked the minister to give us some evidence of the government's restraint in the international arena to insure that so-called soft loans will not balloon even more within a few years. I am pleased to say he indicated their concern with the type of relatively poorly secured long-term financing that is taking place. I hope we can work in conjunction with the other countries that have been active in this type of soft loan system to tighten the rules in order to ensure that Canada and the other nations in future are selling goods, not financing, as far as the export trade is concerned.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in principle we have nothing against extending the insurance activity of EDC as contemplated in Bill C-47. We believe that is the more respectable side of EDC activities, but we feel that it should make a more sincere effort to have that insurance available to many more small businesses in the country than is the case at the present time. To have 60 per cent of the benefit of the insurance going to 50 of the largest corporations in the country is questionable. We are concerned about EDC lending activities because we think we are going to regret the day we made many of the loans that it is now publicizing with great glee in the name of supporting Canadian jobs. They may temporarily give work to Canadians, but in the long run there are going to be severe losses not only in the economic sense but in the sense of job creation in future years.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a good deal of interest to what has been said about the Export Development Corporation this afternoon, especially what the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) had to say about large companies, the long lending policy of the government, and the industries that would be competing with industries here at home. I agree that this should be given careful consideration. If we are going to build up corporations in other countries that are going to be competitive because of a lower wage scale than ours, it means we are going back to being an undeveloped country.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe spoke about the large insurance companies. I want to bring to the attention of the House the small companies that have been forgotten and have not been paid for their losses by the Export Development Corporation or the insurance companies. I refer to a company that sent $40,000 worth of goods to Nairobi. When the goods were delivered, it was found that some were damaged. This was investigated-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, and notices of motions.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a disposition to allow all other bills to stand and debate Bill
May 31, 1977

C-225 standing in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


Ralph Goodale: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Agreed, and so ordered.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North) moved: that Bill C-225, to amend the Criminal Code (young offenders), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, time being limited in private members' hour I shall not, as I usually do, speak without notes but will refer to my notes closely. I hope the government will listen with sympathy to the subject I am about to discuss. I take great pleasure in speaking to Bill C-225, my own bill, which seeks to amend a Criminal Code provision concerning young offenders. In order that hon. members may understand the purpose of this bill, I shall read two sections of the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 12 reads:
No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was under the age of seven years.
That means, in brief, that any person seven years of age can be convicted of a criminal offence, with one exception to which I shall allude in a moment. In short, the Criminal Code treats any person over the age of seven as if he is an adult. The exception is contained in section 13, which reads:
No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was seven years of age or more, but under the age of fourteen years, unless he was competent to know the nature and consequences of his conduct and to appreciate that it was wrong.
In other words, any person between the ages of 7 and 14 can be convicted of a criminal offence, provided he was competent to know the nature and consequences of his conduct and to appreciate that it was wrong. Lawyers in the House will know that that rule is almost identical with the M'Naghten rule concerning insanity. In brief, my amendment would raise the age in section 12 to 12 years. It would raise the age limit from 7 years to 12 years. In other words, no person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he is under the age of 12 years. Surely that is a reasonable request. Surely that outdated part of the Criminal Code which is nearly 100 years old should be thrown out.
My bill would provide, second, that no person shall be convicted of an offence under the code while he is 12 years of
Criminal Code
age or more but under the age of 16, unless he is competent to know the consequences of his conduct. In brief, at present under the Criminal Code a child of eight years can be convicted of murder, manslaughter or robbery with violence, if he knew what he was doing, knew the nature and consequence of his conduct and knew it was wrong. That is the present law of Canada. I will put on record today some shocking statistics concerning the treatment of children in Canada who have been convicted of offences under the code. I shall speak of children under the age of 14 and as young as 12 years. Such children have been sent to penitentiary, there to be incarcerated with adults.
The last time I moved this bill in the House was March 3, 1970, seven long years ago. At that time children were being incarcerated in our penitentiaries. They had been incarcerated in penitentiaries as early as 1964, six years before I introduced the bill the first time. I want to deal with a case of a 12-year old boy who was sentenced by a judge in this country. I want to quote what Mr. Allan MacLeod, the superintendent of penitentiaries in Canada, said to Mr. Bill Trent, at that time a Weekend staff writer. At that time I was happy to have in my office Mrs. Robbin Frazer, who helped me do some research into this question. I now read what Mr. Bill Trent wrote:
Henri had all the cards stacked against him. He was the product of a shiftless father and a prostitute mother, who had separated. In his short lifetime he had been in all sorts of trouble. He had been sentenced to reformatories and at one time had even been committed to a mental hospital.
Then one night, during a period of freedom, he walked into the house to find his mother sleeping with her landlord. Furious, he picked up a can of tomatoes and hurled it at the man, striking him in the head. He was charged with assault.
The judge considered the matter for some time. The nature of the boy's previous offences indicated that he was in serious need of help. But there were no facilities for handling such a case.
At present the law says any person seven years old or older can be charged as an adult. I continue:
The judge Finally sentenced Henri to two years in St. Vincent de Paul, admitting he was worried about the sentence-worried whether the inmates would be a bad influence on the boy, or whether the boy would be a bad influence on the inmates.
I question the latter point. I continue:
Henri was escorted behind the high walls of the maximum-security institution-
I have been to that institution as a visitor. I continue:
-a 12-year old boy among hundreds of hardened criminals.
"I still choke up when I think about it," says Lionel St. Pierre, warden of St. Vincent's federal training centre, who was penitentiary psychologist when the boy arrived. "I hustled him into my office to keep him away from the inmates and arranged to have him transferred to Federal Training Centre."
Henri (who was later released and has apparently been keeping out of trouble) was a polite, wholly co-operative child who responded well to the sympathetic guards.
The guards liked him so well that they chipped into a fund to buy him a scooter, a toy construction set and a fleet of toy trucks.
"It was quite a sight," one of the guards told me, "to see the boy pushing his way around the prison yard on his scooter."
But St. Pierre thinks the saddest incident of all was the day he took Henri into his office.
"The boy had one request and I couldn't grant it," he recalls. "He asked me if it would be all right to go out and play in the streets until supper time."

May 31, 1977
Criminal Code
One hopes Henri's case will not be duplicated. As a result of the crusade I conducted personally in 1963 and 1970, children were removed from federal penitentiaries where they were raped, forced into homosexual acts, and learned the tricks of hardened criminals. Since 1968 the Trudeau government has promised to introduce a young offenders act. We are about as close to getting that bill as we are to having unity in this country. Both promises have been broken and both situations are in the same disarray.
With the files and research I have done-the files are more than one foot deep in my office-and since I am a trial lawyer and have for a number of years conducted cases regarding the custody of children and children getting into difficulty, 1 find that 90 per cent of such cases are the result, I am sorry to say, of irresponsibility of adults, of broken homes and the conduct of parents which in some cases is only fit for publication in Penthouse and Playboy. An article written by Pierre Berton puts the point pretty well. He wrote in part:
One byproduct was homosexuality. Since young offenders were often dumped into prison compounds with old and hardened men, it was almost axiomatic that any youth entering prison (and there were children as young as 13 in Canadian penitentiaries in the 1960's) be forced into homosexual alliance that could scar him for life.
Since 1908 there have been no real changes in the Juvenile Delinquents Act. The Diefenbaker government set up a committee in 1962 to study the whole question of young offenders. The head of that committee was Allan J. MacLeod, and the others where Dr. L. P. Gendreau, Inspector E. W. Willes, Ronald R. Price, and Miss M. L. Lynch. I might say, for the benefit of the Hansard reporter, that I am reading from my notes and he will find all these names mentioned in the text. I say this since I know I am speaking rapidly. That committee recommended, or said that the term "juvenile delinquent" was a belittling one which does not recognize the dignity of youth. They said it should be changed to "young offenders", but the federal government has done nothing despite the framework of a new act which was recently circulated by the Solicitor General's department. After my speech of March 7, 1974, and as a result of the crusade which had been under way long before that date, I managed to get most of the children out of jail by bringing pressure to bear on appropriate authorities and getting the support of the media.
I am still sad to say that today recent statistics are most revolting and disconcerting. Mr. Speaker, at present five inmates 16 years of age are incarcerated in federal penitentiaries. In addition, there are 38 inmates 17 years old and 1,343 inmates between the ages of 18 and 21. Those are national figures applying to 1973. The figures for all Canada with regard to juveniles only are as follows: There are 863 males incarcerated and 557 females, for a total of 1,520 such juveniles. I have not been able to get the 1976-77 figures for all across Canada. However, I was able to obtain figures from Canada's largest province, Ontario, and I stress that the federal government itself has left the vacuum.
The provinces have had to set up training schools at their own expense and children now have been transferred to these schools from penitentiaries; or, on the other hand, they have
[Mr. Woolliams.)
been there confined in their later years instead of being confined with adults in federal penitentiaries. The figures for Ontario for 1975 are as follows: 25 children aged 12 in training schools, 71 aged 13, 204 aged 14, 384 aged 15, and 34 aged 16, for a total of 718. To make matters worse, in 1975 for the age group of young people up to 16 there was a 50 per cent rate of recidivism, meaning that they returned to the same or another institution as the result of crimes committed.
[DOT] (nio)
I was shocked when I read the magazine "Like It Is- Young and In Trouble", publisher Gary C. Price. I checked it out today. It contains stories of what is going on in the training schools across this country. Let me take a few moments to tell the story of Tony. I will not give his last name as that would be unfair to him. Tony, now aged 23, is serving a three-year term in Collin's Bay penitentiary for armed robbery. History: his father died when he was two years of age. He was mistreated by his stepfather, never given a chance, was caught stealing at a very young age, sentenced to St. Joseph's training school at age 13 for truancy.
Fancy sending a person to a training school, a prison, for truancy! At that time he weighed 75 pounds. He was repeatedly beaten by the staff and fellow inmates. He ran away and was caught by the RCMP and handcuffed, but the handcuffs were so large that they kept falling off his wrists. He was returned to school, his head shaved and placed in a padded cell for a six-week period. He started a life of crime.
What about little Peter? Peter's parents broke up. He was sent to live with an 89-year old grandmother. Children's Aid took him away and placed him in a detention home, for truancy. At age 11 he was sentenced to a training school for breaking into a parking meter. He was taken to Cobourg training school in handcuffs. He was beaten by his instructor with his fists and maintains that a nine-year old companion was beaten and kicked because he wet his bed. Finally, he was sent to a reformatory and later a penitentiary.
At age nine Michael was caught stealing. At age ten he was caught again and sent to a training school. A militaristic atmosphere prevailed at the training school. He was attacked by inmates and sometimes forced to bend over for hours with his head in a locker. In this case it is alleged that he was forced to stand against a wall on tip toes with his forefingers pressed against the wall. Thumbtacks were placed under his heels so he could not step back. Punishment was finished when the child had to step back on the tacks.
I can go on quoting experiences for a long time, but there it is. I am of the opinion that Judge Thompson of Ontario, in the Ministry of Community and Social Services at Queen's Park, has the answer. For example, if a person of ten commits murder, or putting it softer, kills someone, he should not be labelled an offender and should be placed under child welfare care. If he has a good home, well and good, he can get the necessary guidance from home. If the home is a seriously depraved one, he should be placed where he can get help from psychiatrists and psychologists and, above all, receive some
May 31, 1977

degree of affection in line with what the average child receives in a normal home. That is all that children want, the same love and affection that the average child gets in a normal home.
1 recommend that hon. members read the John Howard Society of Ontario's response to proposals for new legislation to replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act. There they point out the same kind of treatment that Dr. Thompson set out. I plead with the minister and with the House to remove the windowdressing from reform and get on with the job. Stop image building. Images will be built if you perform. It will take a lot of public relations firms to cover up for the sins of this generation when history is written. When the image builders are dead, the historians will bone-pick the raw, cold carcass of this civilization and the truth will be revealed.
We naturally get enraged and become emotionally disturbed when we see children in the training schools. I have been in training schools in my province. My partner defended someone under the age of 13 on a murder rap. I went to see him last summer because my partner was on holiday. I know how he was confined. If there are to be places of incarceration in reference to their offences and convictions, maybe the wrong people are being put in jail. Maybe it should be somebody else who is responsible for their birth, or it might even be us, the legislators. It is time we moved on, Mr. Speaker. Charles Dickens wrote, "The Law is an ass." Well, this law is an ass. Let us ride that donkey out of the parliamentary pasture. I thank hon. members for listening to me.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) for his inspiring speech and graphic illustrations pertaining to children who have suffered in penitentiaries because of their acts. He is to be congratulated for bringing forth Bill C-225 to amend the Criminal Code (young offenders). It is very timely and should be considered by all Canadians. I note the explanatory notes which state:
Under the present state of the law, no person under the age of seven years shall be convicted of an offence, this constituting a presumption de jure, and no person between the age of 7 and 14 can be convicted unless he was competent to know the nature and consequence of his conduct, this constituting a presumption juris tantum, that is rebuttable.
The purpose of this bill is to provide that no person under the age of 12 years shall be convicted and to raise also from 7 to 12 and 14 to 16 the interval during which the presumption juris tantum is applicable.
The bill provides also that no person under the age of 16 may be sentenced to imprisonment in a penitentiary as it is now possible for a delinquent, under the present state of law, in some cases.
This was pointed out graphically in the illustrations of the hon. member for Calgary North. We are concerned with sections 12 and 13 of the present act which read as follows:
12.	No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was under the age of seven years.
13.	No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act of omission on his part while he was seven years of age or more, but under the age of 14 years unless he was competent to know the nature and consequences of his conduct and to appreciate that it was wrong.
It is an anachronism that the Criminal Code now contemplates that a child as young as seven can attract criminal responsibility. Therefore, in rising to speak on Bill C-225 I
Criminal Code
might say that I have a great deal of sympathy for part of the philosophy that, as I understand it, lies at the root of this bill. I suggest that this House is probably generally in accord with the thesis that children under the age of 12 should not be considered criminally responsible. I understand that in practice a relatively small percentage of juvenile delinquents adjudged to have committed a delinquency under the Juvenile Delinquents Act are under 12 years, and that most children under 12 are dealt with under the appropriate provincial child welfare or youth protection legislation.
The report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency in 1965 recommended that the minimum age of criminal responsibility be set at 10 or, at most, 12. Bill C-192, the young offenders bill, contained a provision to raise the minimum age to 10. The recent report of the Solicitor General's Committee on Young Persons in Conflict with the Law recommended raising the minimum age to 14. I understand that the responses received during the consultations held across Canada suggest support for the proposal of the hon. member for Calgary North to raise the minimum age to 12. In the report "Young Persons in Conflict with the Law" it is recommended that the minimum age under any new youth delinquency legislation should be 14. I quote from the report:
This would not imply that anyone under the age of 14 could perform harmful acts with impunity. Rather, the committee proposes that children below the age of 14 should not come under the jurisdiction of criminal legislation, but would be more appropriately looked after under the provisions of provincial child welfare, youth protection and juvenile correction legislation.
In May, 1976, the Canadian Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges drafted a working paper on the report, the judges contending that the minimum age should be 12. They concluded:
-that 12 and 13-year olds are committing offences of sufficient seriousness that child welfare authorities will be unable or unwilling to assume responsibility for them.
There is certainly evidence to support this contention. In 1973, Statistics Canada reported that of 553 juvenile delinquents aged 12, 17 were convicted of common assault, one of assault causing bodily harm, 181 of crimes against property with violence and 6 of carrying offensive weapons. Of 1,137 juveniles aged 13, 27 were guilty of common assault, of assault causing bodily harm and danger with intent, 357 of crimes against property, with violence, and 11 cases of carrying offensive weapons. I believe these figures illustrate the fact that 12 and 13-year olds are capable of committing a wide variety of offences that cannot be shrugged off or taken lightly. Assault with intent to cause bodily harm is no laughing matter.
The remaining two provisions, however, present difficulties which I suggest will require further consideration. The second provision in the bill is to extend the application of what is known as the doli incapax rule so that persons aged 12 but under 16 should not be convicted unless shown to be competent to know the nature of their conduct and appreciate that it was wrong. The doli incapax rule under section 13 of the Criminal

May 31, 1977
Criminal Code
Code pertains now to persons of 7 years but under the age of 14. This rule is based on a rebuttable presumption that a child between the ages of 7 and 14 is incapable of committing a crime. Blacks Law Dictionary, fourth edition, defines doli incapax as the following:
Incapable of criminal intention or malice; not of the age of discretion; not possessed of sufficient discretion and intelligence to distinguish between right and wrong to the extent of being criminally responsible for his actions.
Thus, in order to establish criminal liability the prosecutor is required to show that the child has the competence to know the nature and consequences of his crime and to appreciate that it was wrong. The Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency recommended the abolition of the doli incapax rule. The report noted that juvenile court judges were not then familiar with the doli incapax rule and that in any case the rule is difficult to apply. I would like to quote from the report which explains the reasoning for the abolition of the doli incapax rule:
The rule was formulated at a time when there were no juvenile courts and when the penalties of the criminal law were extremely harsh. Having regard to the difficulty in interpreting and applying the rule, and to the modest sanctions available under the present law, we doubt that there is any real advantage in retaining the rule. It is important to note also that the presumption weakens with the advance of the child's years towards fourteen. Its principal value is in connection with proceedings against offenders who are very young. Our proposal for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility would further diminish the need for the rule. Finally, we think that the basic objective that the doli incapax rule is designed to serve can be accomplished more effectively through flexible disposition provisions.
That quotation can be found on page 54 of the report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency. The committee's report on Young Persons in Conflict with the Law also recommended that the doli incapax rule be abolished. Its recommendation was based on the rationale that in setting out the age jurisdiction of the proposed legislation to replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act, young persons between 14 years and under 18 should be held responsible for their illegal acts. Such an age range, however, would not prevent any province, on the basis of administrative policy, to choose not to apply the federal legislation if the circumstances of a given case demonstrated that a young person would be more appropriately dealt with under provincial legislation or that he should not be proceeded with at all.
If we increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 12, I would be inclined to support the recommendations of the two committees to abolish the doli incapax rule. This is based on the premise that young persons between 12 and 16 generally have the competence to know the nature and consequences of their conduct and appreciate the wrongfulness of their acts and thus should be held responsible for any illegal acts. At the same time, I support the philosophy that young persons in this age group are still in their formative years and that, generally, sanctions for their illegal behaviour should be more limited and, I believe, more specialized than those applicable to adults. They should receive special services to meet their needs, which are distinctly different from those that are available to adults.
I would like to turn to the provision in the hon. member's bill which calls for the use of industrial schools instead of the
penitentiary system for young offenders convicted under the provisions of the Criminal Code. Under certain circumstances this may prove to be impossible. It is clear that the hon. member would like to protect a youthful offender from the hardened types he is likely to encounter in the "pen". Having been a member of the subcommittee investigating the penitentiary system in Canada, I can fully endorse that point of view. Some of the inmates I met were quite unsavoury and a young offender, it seems to me, would be at the mercy of such individuals. Instead of providing rehabilitation, the penitentiary would become a school for crime.
However, we are also faced with the problem of combining youths who have committed the crime of car theft-"joy-riding"-and a youth who has been convicted of murder. Under these circumstances the provisions the hon. member has put forward would be extremely impractical, not to mention unsafe. If a youth was convicted of murder-and in 1973, 5 youths between the ages of 14 and 17 were convicted of this crime-could we really expect him to serve his sentence of a minimum of 10 to 25 years, or for the rest of his life, in an institution designed for the custody and rehabilitation of youths who have committed, relatively speaking, of course, minor offences?
One of the proposals contained in the report of the Solicitor General's committee would partially meet the intent of the bill, and would in my opinion be more realistic. It would provide for a young person who has been transferred to adult court and sentenced to a term of imprisonment to be kept in a place of secure custody as defined under the federal juvenile legislation until age 21 after which, if his term of imprisonment is to continue, he would be transferred to a place where he might ordinarily have been imprisoned. In this regard, the proposal meets the intent of preventing the confinement of any person under the age of 16 years in a penitentiary and yet it is more realistic in allowing a young person to be transferred to an adult institution by the time he reaches the age of 21. This would likely facilitate rehabilitation as well as custodial treatment.
While I support in principle the provision to increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility and the intent of the provision to avoid the confinement of any person under the age of 16 in a penitentiary, I cannot support this bill as it now stands. I understand that the ministry of the Solicitor General has been working intensively on the development of proposals for new legislation to replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act. The Solicitor General's committee's report on Young Pesons in Conflict with the Law has been used as a basis for nationwide consultations on a broad range of issues, including those raised in this bill.
One such consultation is the working paper put out by juvenile and family court judges to which I referred earlier. I do not think it is desirable at this time to make specific changes to the Criminal Code affecting age limits. We must look at the whole problem of the young offender. We must contemplate how the age changes will bear on the philosophy,

May 31, 1977

principles, the delivery of services by the provinces, and other related matters.
We must also look into the facilities that currently exist in the provinces. Are there enough institutions now to house youthful offenders if we pass this bill? I understand that at present the province of British Columbia is rethinking its approach to the juvenile delinquent. That rethinking includes the reinstitution of training schools into the correctional process. We can hardly agree to send a youth to an industrial school that does not yet exist. We must also consider the auxiliary services that we would require as well as buildings and thoroughly qualified and trained staff. Certainly there are many individuals who would qualify, but are there enough?
1 suggest, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. colleague from Calgary North withdraw his bill for the time being. Once the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General's office have had time to assess the results of the consultative process, I believe the government will be putting forward its proposals for changes to the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the Criminal Code. At that time the hon. member can make known his views on this very important subject, for I am certain that the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) will seek the views of all those who have a material interest in the subject matter before any legislation is introduced.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few comments to make on this very important bill. 1 think great credit is due to my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) for the interest he has shown in this very important topic and for bringing forward this bill. Not only has he demonstrated his interest on this occasion, but in the past he has been responsible for placing very great emphasis on legal reform as it pertains to better treatment of youthful offenders.
I was very impressed as well with the remarks of my friend, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), an excellent member of parliament who has many times shown his concern for matters of law reform and the protection of civil rights and liberties. Whenever such occasion has risen the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore has been in the forefront of those who have made an active and valuable contribution.
It seems to me that the principles implicit in this bill moved by the hon. member for Calgary North should find general agreement not only with members of parliament but with all people who are concerned with law reform and the rehabilitation of young offenders. I think it is fair to say that more selective and humane treatment of young people under our criminal law is long overdue. I trust that government will continue this impetus and that before long, as the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore has said, action is taken on a wide front, not just under the Criminal Code.
It seems to me to be rather paradoxical, judging from my own limited experience, that there appears to be in some areas of the civil law greater understanding of the foibles and
Criminal Code
unpredictability of youth than there is under the criminal law. I guess all of us who have practised law are aware that, while it might be frivolous to say that every dog is entitled to his first bite, there is a certain amount of truth to this in the matter of liability which accrues to young people and their parents under the civil law.
If, for example, a young person commits an act of destruction for which ordinarily such person would be directly accountable, as indeed their parents may be accountable in extreme circumstances, but it can be demonstrated that this is the first time the act has been committed and that there is no propensity shown for this kind of act, then in most cases, as I understand the law, such a juvenile is, in effect, permitted to have his first bite, to commit that one act of destruction, with the hope that all concerned will learn a lesson.
Surely since this kind of tradition under the common law has grown up over the centuries in terms of civil liability, it is time we took a very hard look at the attitude that continues to be reflected in the Criminal Code which, as my hon. friend from Calgary North so eloquently said, results in an unbelievable perversion of justice whereby young people between seven and 12 years of age under certain circumstances are incarcerated, so long as they appreciate the nature and quality of their act, and thus suffer the type of fate detailed in some of the incidents and statistics quoted by the hon. member for Calgary North.
I suggest that the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), all concerned members of parliament, the ministers of justice and attorneys general of the provinces should take this opportunity which is afforded in the House of Commons of Canada to rethink this situation, and once more make a commitment to join together either to bring in specific measures of the type implicit in this bill or, as the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore has suggested, to move ahead in a different area and provide some social measures by way of legislation which will alleviate the situation.
Indeed, in the context of social reform, it seems to me that it would not be inappropriate, either through educational means or through other measures, to put more responsibility on the parents of children who are perfectly able to give their children better training and assume more responsibility for them. When these parents find their offspring in difficulty and it appears that the parents have wilfully neglected their responsibility as parents, then I feel some of the blame-indeed, some sanction may be necessary on the part of society-should fall upon them, as well as upon the children they have failed.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by congratulating both my learned friends for their remarks today. I just wanted to say a few brief words in support of the propositions which they have put forward.


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-225 let me say at once that I have a great deal of sympathy for part of the philosophy which, as I understand it, is at the root of this particular bill. It is on this basis that I congratulate the hon.
6134

May 31, 1977
Criminal Code
member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). He is a learned trial lawyer and certainly has displayed both inside and outside the House his deep concern for judicial reform.
Youth in conflict with the law is paramount in the minds of many Canadians. Young people are involved in such serious offences today as robbery, assault, etc. From time to time I receive letters from constituents who are very concerned and frustrated because they feel there is nothing the law can do to protect them from young offenders.
Recently police in my own area were conducting investigations concerning young offenders who were involved in a protection racket. Many of the people who were victims of this racket came to see me because they were very frustrated that the law could do very little to protect them. Other incidents I have heard of involved young offenders who live in public housing units; they vandalize these units and assault the people who live in them, particularly senior citizens.
Also of equal importance, those of us who served on the sub-committee on justice and legal affairs which was examining conditions in our penitentiaries were told that the average age of offenders in the Canadian penitentiary system is 27 years. We also heard some very tragic stories concerning inmates in maximum security institutions who entered the penal system at a very early age. Many of them entered our system at the age of 12 or 13 years. They started out in foster homes, graduated to industrial training schools, then went through the provincial jail system, finally ending up in the "big house" or what we call the maximum security institution. Fortunately many of these offenders are doing some of their time now in medium and minimum security institutions, most of them being out on day parole. It is this kind of tragedy which is the reason that I and the hon. member for Calgary North, as well as the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), are very concerned about the whole issue of young offenders.
I can cite some examples. When the subcommittee was travelling in the Atlantic region, we heard the story of a young individual who was incarcerated at the age of 13 years old in a maximum security institution, for stealing a car which really, in effect, amounted to no more than joyriding. At the time we talked to that individual he was 36 years of age. Thus, for some 23 years he had been in and out of our penal system.
I am sure it almost goes without saying that there are many cliches which people talk about that are true; but when a young person goes into the "big house" or a maximum institution, he is subject to a lot of pressure, a lot of harassment, and is also subject to learning the tools of the trade. In effect he graduates to much more serious crime and becomes very involved with that particular element. When we looked at that particular individual, he was in solitary confinement, and he certainly was a security risk. I made some inquiries about him, asking why he was in solitary confinement and why he was considered to be that much of a security risk. The authorities

replied, "You look at him. You can see he is a security risk because he has taken a hostage, raised a lot of problems, caused vandalism within the institution, ransacked his cell, caused fires, broke the toilet in his cell, and also broke the sink. Also, on a number of occasions, he has worked with others and conspired with others attempting to escape. Certainly he should be classified as a security risk."
In talking to the classifications officer and to the psychologist working in the institution at that time, we found out that back in the history of this individual we could have certainly done something with him at the time of the original sentence which was for, to all intents and purposes, no more than joyriding, and yet he was charged with and convicted of stealing a motor vehicle. He was charged in the adult courts and placed in a maximum security institution. These are the kinds of tragedies we see in small numbers within our federal penal institutions. Even though they are in small numbers, it happens too often. There may be many that are not reported.
There are other instances where we see people 35-36 years of age who are serving time in our maximum institutions who literally get burned out, as they say, and tired of dealing with the entire system. They are tired of dealing with maximum security institutions, of going in and out like a revolving door and finally get to the point where they say "I have had enough". It is at that particular time they feel they should try and rehabilitate themselves, and they do so. There have been some very good success stories and testimonies from a number of these individuals. One of them we heard was from a man who is now doing work with young people, retarded people and young offenders, in the Atlantic region. At some point in time, if we had a proper set of laws to deal with such offenders, and proper programs to deal with them, it goes without saying that we could do something with them and save this very valuable resource, our youth.
It almost goes without saying, and for that matter it is almost a cliche, that the problems will not be resolved through bills like Bill C-225 or any other legislative reform dealing with young offenders. It requires community involvement and initiative. It also requires other imaginative governmental programs, like the creation of the Ministry of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Young people need to be active, and it is the government's responsibility and the community's responsibility to provide opportunities for youth.
In my own particular area we have a very high rate of young offenders. During some of the meetings with my community workers and people who work in my area I found, much to my surprise, that in one particular area, which has one of the highest rates of juvenile offenders-the Mount Pleasant area-the community facilities were closed at six o'clock in the evenings. That is the time the majority of our young people are looking for some facility where they can go and play basketball, badminton or something along these lines.
If we took a more imaginative and bold approach to trying to resolve some of the problems of our youth, we would be much better off. It is the responsibility of parents and the people involved in dealing with youth-the educational system.
May 31, 1977

As the hon. members who have spoken so far have pointed out, it behooves the government to lay down the ground work and the framework on which we can deal with youth offenders.
As the law now stands, young offenders are dealt with under the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908, as amended from time to time. The act established special juvenile courts and special procedures for dealing with young offenders. Previously, young offenders had been treated as ordinary criminals and brought before the ordinary criminal courts. The intent of the 1908 act was to treat a child not as a criminal but as a misdirected child and one needing aid, encouragement, help and assistance. In view of the changes in society and how society has learned to deal with them, the 1908 act has not fulfilled its promise.
I would like to quote from the "Highlights of the Proposed New Legislation for Young Offenders" at page 1, which reads as follows:
In the view of many, young persons have not received proper care and treatment, and are not afforded all the basic rights and protections afforded to adults facing a criminal charge. It is also held that existing procedures fail to protect society and fail to bring about the salutary acceptance of responsibility for delinquent acts that should be part of the educational experience of the young offender.
Rather, the 1908 act with its concentration upon the offence of juvenile delinquency tends to label and stigmatize a child, thereby reinforcing a delinquent self-image and perpetuating delinquent behaviour.
The government has long recognized the need to replace the 1908 Juvenile Delinquents Act in an attempt to design better ways to deal with young persons who break the law and to reflect changes that have developed in the way young people are regarded in society. Its more recent efforts occurred in the fall of 1973 when cabinet authorized the Department of the Solicitor General and the Department of National Health and Welfare to carry out a joint review in consultation with provincial governments, of the programs, services and related financial arrangements concerning young persons in conflict with the law. The report of the federal-provincial joint review group, published in August of 1974, documented deficiencies in the juvenile justice field with respect to the limitations of present services and resources; the need for extensions of existing resources; and the need for federal-provincial assistance to extend existing resources to administer more adequately the present legislation.
Concurrent with the work of the federal-provincial joint review group, a committee on legislation was appointed by the Solicitor General with the view to submitting recommendations for new legislation to replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act. In September of 1975 the Solicitor General's committee on legislation released its report entitled "Young Persons in Conflict with the Law". The report was widely distributed across Canada for the express purpose of eliciting reactions, through consultation, from provincial government departments, from agencies and groups offering services to young persons in trouble, from professionals, interest groups and associations and the general public. In the year following the publication of the report approximately 70 meetings were held across the country, and over 150 briefs and submissions were received on the subject.
Criminal Code
The decision to organize and invest such time and resources in a wide reaching consultation process was a direct outcome of our past failures to bring about change in the field of juvenile justice in Canada. We are all familiar with the aborted attempts in the early seventies to replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act with Bill C-192, the young offenders legislation. It is generally agreed that one of the reasons for such failure was the lack of adequate consultation with interest groups and provincial governments prior to the presentation of the legislation to parliament.
For this reason, when the report on Young Persons in Conflict with the Law was released, the then solicitor general emphasized that before coming to final conclusions on new legislation it was important that consultation be undertaken to avoid the difficulties experienced with Bill C-192 and to provide for adequate public input on the development of legislation before proceeding to parliament.
At the close of the consultative process the reactions and suggested alternatives were closely analyzed, and a new set of legislative proposals was drafted. These proposals appeared in a document entitled "Highlights of the Proposed New Legislation for Young Offenders" which the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) tabled in the House of Commons on March 21 of this year.
The most recent legislative recommendations were discussed at the meeting of the continuing committee of deputy ministers of corrections in Regina on March 25 where responses to the proposed legislation were generally positive. The topic, particularly relating to a few specific outstanding issues, will also be discussed at the joint meeting of attorneys general and ministers responsible for corrections scheduled for the end of June.
The proposals for new legislation are aimed at incorporating changing principles and practices which have developed in the juvenile justice field over the years. In addition to formalizing such change, the proposals for new legislation create new processes and procedures to overcome the outdated features or inadequacies which exist in the Juvenile Delinquents Act. I would like to quote from "Highlights of the Proposed New Legislation for Young Offenders" as follows:
Young persons who commit offences should bear responsibility for their contraventions and while young persons should not in all instances be held accountable in the same manner or suffer the same consequences for their behaviour as adults, society must nonetheless be afforded the necessary protection from such illegal behaviour.
In affording society protection from illegal behaviour, it is to be recognized that young persons require supervision, discipline and control, but also, because of their state of dependency and lack of maturity, have special needs and require guidance and assistance.
Where not inconsistent with the protection of society, consideration should be given to using alternatives to the formal youth justice process for dealing with young persons who have committed offences which come within the jurisdiction of the Act.
In determining the responsibility of young persons under the Act, it is to be recognized that young persons have rights and freedoms equal to those of adults including those stated in the Canadian Bill of Rights; and in particular, a right to be heard in the course of, and to participate in, the processes that lead to
80016-48'/2

May 31, 1977
Criminal Code
decisions that affect them, as well as special guarantees of these rights and freedoms.
In the application of the Act, the rights of young persons include a right to the least interference with freedom, having regard to the protection of society, the needs of young persons, and the interests of their families.
Young persons have the right, in every instance where they have rights or freedoms which may be affected by the Act, to be informed as to what those rights and freedoms are.
Parents have primary responsibility for the care and supervision of their children and, therefore, young persons should be removed from parental supervision either partly or entirely only when all other measures that provide for continuing parental supervision are inappropriate; however, if it is necessary so to remove them, they shall be dealt with, in all respects and as nearly as may be, as they would be dealt with if they were under the care and protection of wise and conscientious parents.
Discussions and consultation during the past three years have not, however, been restricted to the substance of legislation, as I have just outlined. A major objective has been to identify the resource requirements and financial implications of new legislation and to explore ways of extending additional federal financial support to the juvenile justice system.
As a result of our detailed discussions the federal government is now prepared to extend the range of juvenile services eligible for cost sharing to include diversion services, pre-dispositional assessments and reports, and post-dispositional community supervision, including probation. Such additional funding assistance would be extended under the framework of the proposed social services legislation.
These additional services place greater reliance on community solutions to the problems of young offenders are distinct from current financial assistance to provinces for custodial services which remove a young person from his home and often from his community.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are not going to talk a good bill like this out, are you?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1 would now like to address myself to the substance of Bill C-225, standing in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North.


Ralph Goodale: There is so much good that has to be said.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: In rising to speak on Bill C-225 I stated at the outset that I have a great deal of sympathy for part of the philosophy which, as I understand it, lies at the root of this bill. I submit that this House is generally in accord with the thesis that children under the age of 12 should not be considered criminally responsible. It is indeed an anachronism that the Criminal Code now contemplates that a child as young as seven can attract criminal responsibility. It is my understanding that in practice a relatively small percentage of juvenile delinquents adjudged to have committed a delinquency under the Juvenile Delinquents Act are under 12 years of age.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: In fact most children under 12 are dealt with under the appropriate provincial child welfare or youth protection legislation. In 1965 the report of the Department of

Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency recommended that the minimum age of criminal responsibility be set at 10, or, at most, 12. The young offenders bill, Bill C-192, contained a provision to raise the minimum age to 10. The recent report of , the Solicitor General's committee on Young Persons in Conflict with the Law-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but his allotted time has expired. The hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Loiselle).
[ Translation]


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I feel duty-bound to rise on a motion I find excellent, but I agree with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that we should intervene on such a matter as juvenile delinquency. Even then, I feel I should go even further. In his motion, the hon. member attacks, after a fashion, the consequences of our society. The penalties are criticized but not the source of evil. I have always felt that where juvenile delinquents are concerned, we should meet more often with the provinces as well as the various community groups, with a view to giving our young people . . . Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, my questions to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), which were really a series of questions initiated on May 19 and continued on May 20 last, were to ask the minister whether he, or his department, was in a position to table in the House statistical data, or a report containing statistical data, which would indicate the risk factor in connection with the marine handling of oil and other hazardous cargo.
These questions were prompted by two recent events, the first of which was the release of a report commissioned by the Department of Fisheries and the Environment which was made available to those members of parliament who were interested. The report was entitled "The Determination of Probabilities of Oil Spills in Canadian Arctic Waters" and dealt specifically with the probabilities of blowouts in exploratory drilling in the Beaufort Sea and other Arctic areas. The briefing note from the environmental protection service of the department which accompanied the report indicated:
May 31, 1977

The report is an application to off-shore exploratory drilling of a method used to evaluate nuclear reactor safety. It uses the laws of probability to combine the probabilities of basic events which could lead to a blowout so as to predict the probability of a blowout.
The briefing note then goes on to say that while the report is limited,
... the report in its present form provides the best available statistical basis for decision-making.
My position is that it is very difficult as an issue to separate exploratory drilling from the handling of hazardous cargo. It may be that if we are successful in exploratory drilling, the amount of oil tanker traffic would dramatically increase, and therefore these two issues are inextricably combined.
The second event that prompted my series of questions to the Minister of Transport was a document filed by that department entitled "National Marine Emergency Plan" which deals with our capabilities, among other things, of handling oil spills and other toxic materials. I immediately had to ask myself that, given this report, which I found to be an interesting and informative report, does the department know the probability of an oil spill or of the spill of other toxic material and, if it does not, how can one evaluate the efficacy of the report or the ability to handle clean-up operations?
On May 20 when I asked the minister the second set of questions he indicated that internal working documents were available to him and that the department was developing positions in anticipation of an international conference. Therefore 1 have to ask if the department is in a position to make domestic decisions in this regard. Certainly they went so far as to file this marine emergency plan, and if they are in a position to adopt a Canadian position at what would presumably be an important international conference, why can they not table the material in the House of Commons? In my view his answer is unsatisfactory.
We are dealing daily with increased tanker traffic, super tankers, marine traffic and other hazardous cargo, super ports, such as the one that exists at Cherry Point, Washington, and the proposed Kitimat super-port on the west coast. Why in this area, when we have reports on nuclear reactor risks, on exploratory drilling risks, and a report from the Department of Fisheries and the Environment entitled "An Environmental Risk Index for the Siting of Deep Water Oil Ports", do we not have the report on the risk of handling oil and other hazardous cargo? I would like to know what the risk would be with increased traffic of oil tankers and other cargo ships, what it would be with increased size of ships, in certain weather conditions and at certain times of the year, all of which can be done actuarially.
To my dismay I found I could write or phone the U.S. coastguard and secure information from them, and yet we are in a position here in Canada where the minister can make a decision on the Canadian position at an international conference and yet is not in a position to table the material on which he based the decision. I can only assume therefore that the government maintains the view that this information is so
Adjournment Debate
technical that it should not be made available to the public for fear they would misunderstand, or not understand it at all. I suggest, in reply to that paranoia, that the government greatly underestimates the maturity of the Canadian public and the maturity of this House. How else can we make proper decisions-except of course the NDP who are always inclined to throw out the matter whether it be Kitimat or the Makenzie Valley or anything else-and how can we act responsibly and responsively unless the Minister of Transport is willing to take us into his confidence and release this information to us?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a part of my distinguished colleague's question in the three minutes available to me. I am sure he understands and appreciates that it will be difficult to do so in three minutes.
The main source of the vessel casualty statistics used in developing an oil spill expectation analysis for Canadian ship terminal systems was provided through records of the 3,763 world-wide tanker accidents which took place between 19691974. Records included only those tankers which have greater than 3,000 tons deadweight, which excluded, therefore, small harbour tankers used for bunkering ships in port.
An oil spill expectation algorithm was then developed from these existing ship casualty statistics in conjunction with predicted change in the volume of the marine traffic flow within the ship terminal system under consideration. Further, the algorithm was modified to encompass all the marine network constraints of the ship terminal system, including critical channel widths and areas of concern.
As you might appreciate, Mr. Speaker, some fairly complicated calculations are required to arrive at an algorithm which would take into account such factors as spill probability for coastal and ship terminal areas, exposure rates of design ships, etc., but time this afternoon does not allow me to pursue these factors in more depth.
Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Kitimat ship terminal oil spill expectations, using this algorithm it was concluded that over a 25-year period there is a 75 per cent probability of one pollution causing incident of a major nature developing within the Kitimat ship terminal system, which could cause an oil outflow of 387 tons. In addition, an annual oil outflow of approximately 35 tons arising from minor incidents could be expected.
In conclusion I should like to point out that these oil spill tonnages compare favourably with the empirical rule of 40-70 barrels spill expected per million barrels of oil throughput.


AIR TRANSPORT-EFFECT OF PROPOSED TAKE-OVER OF TRANSAIR BY PACIFIC WESTERN ON PRAIRIE REGIONAL SERVICE
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, on May 6 I asked a question regarding the long anticipated prairie air service. It was one of a series of questions I have asked since 1974 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in

May 31, 1977
Adjournment Debate
company with the then minister of national defence, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson), made a special trip to Winnipeg. He announced, during the election campaign, that there would be a prairie air service commenced, and that it would be dealt with expeditiously because it was realized that first-class air service was necessary to the continuing progress of the economy and of the community of eastern Saskatchewan and western Manitoba.
There has been no action since that time in specific terms other than a long series of negotiations, changes of mind, and unkept promises. This evening I raise the issue again in the hope, now that another summer is upon us, that we will be able to get assurance that this long anticipated service will commence during the summer months of 1977. I say this because it will require certain upgrading of facilities, and in answer to questions the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has indicated that plans are under way and the necessary infrastructure will proceed as soon as the decision is made.
The situation becomes more ridiculous when you realize that in 1973 a terminal was opened at the airport just north of Brandon, Manitoba, which cost a considerable sum of money, and a short time later the service was withdrawn. This only adds to the urgency of the matter.
We thought we were about to get an air service when negotiations were under way with the province of Manitoba. But the proposal was turned down because it proved unsatisfactory to the government and the Minister of Transport. The minister has stated specifically that he wants commuter service between Winnipeg, Yorkton and Saskatoon. He has offered a $.9 million subsidy for that purpose. He also wants a jet service between Toronto, Brandon and Regina, and is providing a $1.1 million subsidy for that purpose.
A further complication emerged recently. As was indicated in the press and statements in this House, Pacific Western Airlines is now negotiating with Transair to take-over that facility and develop a co-ordinated and organized western regional air service. Transair has made the specific proposal in response to the minister's subsidy proposals. When I askeu the question on May 6 the minister indicated that the last date for intervention was May 9, after which the Canadian Transport Commission would decide. Almost three weeks have passed since that date, and I hope this evening that whoever speaks for the government will indicate that the green signal has been given, that the service has been announced, and that we will receive the good news soon. We hope that at long last this badly needed air service will be provided to the prairie region and that the service will be well under way this summer.
I raise another matter in connection with the anticipated Pacific Western Airlines take-over of Transair. We want several assurances in this regard. As was indicated, negotiations will take almost one year. The government has approved the conducting of the negotiations. We want the assurance that the Transair maintenance base will remain in Winnipeg. Air Canada's moving its base to Montreal created an economic

disaster of considerable proportions. That disaster was slowly being put right by the establishment of a maintenance air base operated by Transair. I hope we shall have the assurance that this facility will remain, despite the proposed take-over by Pacific Western Airlines.
We also want the assurance that jet service is still an essential part of the minister's proposal. If it will not be possible for a western regional air carrier to provide this service, we want the assurance that Air Canada will discharge that obligation. We used to have Air Canada service. That, unfortunately, was discontinued. Air Canada could easily divert one of its jets to the Toronto-Brandon-Regina route.
First and foremost, we trust the government can indicate this evening that the service will begin this coming summer.


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the impatience of my colleague, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). The minister is keenly interested in the introduction of air services to Brandon, Dauphin and Yorkton. The Government of Canada has announced its willingness to provide financial support of operating deficits, recoverable in part or in whole in return for service guaran-teees by the successful carriers. Applications to provide air services to some or all of these communities have been submitted to the Canadian Transport Commission by several interested parties.
The CTC has the responsibility to determine whether these proposed services meet requirements for public convenience and necessity. The date for final reply to interventions by the various apllicants was May 9, as the hon. member mentioned, and consideration of public hearings to assess the applications will probably be the next step taken by the CTC.
Should the proposed take-over by Pacific Western Airlines of Transair come to pass, this may influence the timing of future developments. Of course the take-over of one airline by another must be approved by the CTC. If a take-over of Transair were to take place, public hearings may be required.
The statutory responsibilities and the required procedures for assessing and approving the prairie air service proposals and any potential take-over remain with the CTC. The minister is deeply interested in improving air services in the west and prefers that the necessary steps to this realization be completed as quickly as possible.


INCOME TAX-MEAL ALLOWANCE FOR TRUCK DRIVERS- POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of hourly wage earners in my constituency. A good many of them are truck drivers. Some of them have come to me with a problem that is endemic to the trucking industry. The Income Tax Department requires daily receipts for all meals which the truckers eat. In consequence of their representations, I asked the minister a question on March 22, which stated in part:
May 31, 1977

As the minister is aware, many of these drivers spend up to 200 days a year in their cabs, which is not the most conducive place to conduct office procedure, yet they are allowed only $7.50 per day for meals without receipts, whereas members of her department receive an allowance of up to $15. Is there any plan in her department or on her part to change the present requirement for truck drivers and allow at least $12 per day?
The first thing I would like to point out regarding this policy is the fact that it is discriminatory. Truckers have to show receipts in the 1975 taxation year for anything spent beyond $7.50. I understand it has now been increased to $9. By and large, what the tax department is saying is that they will grant them as little as possible without receipts.
Federal employees who travel on behalf of the government outside of their offices are granted per diems with no receipts at as realistic a rate as possible of at least $13.50 or $15. I do not understand why a truck driver should only get half as much an allowance as a civil servant.
These truckers travel across the country. They cannot just stop at any old place and get a meat that is good for them. They are hard working men and they deserve a little bit of allowance.
The minister said in a letter to me that it is a matter of control, the department has to be able to control expense. I received a notification from a hotel owner in an interior city. He pointed out that most federal civil servants when they stay outside the main metropolitan area go to a hotel down the street where they pay $22 or $23 a night, whereas if they stay at another hotel or motel they could get the same accommodation for $14 or $16. 1 do not think the government is in any position to talk about control over spending. The only ones it wants to control are the wage earners.
The second point I want to make is that the whole procedure of requiring these receipts is uneconomic. Imagine a tax file being delivered to the Income Tax office containing the records of a truck driver on the road for 200 days, eating three meals a day, with a total of 600 receipts. An accountant in the office would have to total the 600 receipts. If he missed a few, he would have to look through them again. He would have to be paid wages while counting those receipts. At the end, his figure may be challenged by the taxpayer and he would have to do it again. On the difference between the $7.50 and the $9, or the $9 and the $12 the truck drivers would like to have, when you figure out the tax on that difference is it an economic procedure to have a civil servant totalling all of those receipts, maybe twice, and then figuring out the difference? They might save a couple of bucks, but they will get it off the blue collar workers.
The third point I want to make is that this is a very disturbing mentality on the part of the government. Essentially what the government is saying is that every truck driver in this country is a potential crook. The government feels he should be watched because he might eat more than $9 worth of food. If he happened to have $11 or $12, the government might miss out on 30 cents. Therefore it tries to get that crook.
I lived in the United States for a few years. I attended university and worked part time there. I had to file an income
Adjournment Debate
tax return. The difference I saw was this. Any time I had to File an income tax claim in the United States I could go to that office and I could say, "Look, here is my file, can you help me with it?" And they would say, "Sure, here are two or three other places where you can save some money; you did not make the deductions for it." But try to do that with the Canadian revenue service. They would say, "You are trying to get away with something here." It is an entirely different attitude in Canada. What we are doing is educating our people to see themselves as potential crooks. Why cannot we give them the benefit of the doubt and let them eat proper meals on the road, quit fudging on a few receipts, and let them feel as though they were upstanding, honourable, taxpaying, working people?
The irony is that according to an article in the Vancouver Sun, when prisoners are let out of our penitentiaries on compassionate leave they are allowed $15. But a truck driver gets $9. I guess crime pays. Salesmen, when they go on the road, can take their customers to lunch. They can buy them cocktails, get them rib steaks, give them liqueurs. It is all a deductible expense. But unless a truck driver takes his three meals at McDonald's he will be seen as a crook if he does not have receipts.
I know one taxpayer who went to the bother of saving all his receipts for three months just to prove to the taxation department that he was spending $12 a day on meals. Mr. Speaker, you have been on trains. You know what it costs to eat on the road. A working man needs three square meals a day. Yet this gentleman who saved his receipts and proved beyond a doubt that after three months he had spent $12 a day was told, at the end, "Give us the receipts for the other nine months or you don't get your deduction."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Jacques Guilbauit (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the administrative procedures insofar as away-from-home expenses are concerned are explained in detail in our information circular 73-21R2. The hon. member asked about the allowance for meals for long-distance truck drivers for income tax purposes. An employee of a trucking company or other employer whose principal business is goods and passenger transport, and is required regularly to travel away from his home terminal on vehicules used by his employer for that purpose, may deduct amounts disbursed for meals and lodging while travelling to the extent he is not entitled to be reimbursed by his employer.
He may claim under one of two procedures. Under the simplified method, he may file with his tax return a listing of trips actually taken, and the department will allow a maximum cost of $3.00 per meal without a supporting voucher. Under the detailed method, the employee must maintain a record book in which each disbursement is recorded, including the name and location of the restaurant and individual amounts expended. Disbursements so recorded will be allowed to the

May 31, 1977
Export Development Act
extent they are reasonable and where they are in excess of $3 a meal they must be supported by vouchers.
Some members may quarrel with this method but it seems to me the simplest and the easiest way. We all recognize that in parts of the country it may not be possible to get a reasonable meal for $3. All we ask a person to do is to collect his bills and to list them.
Anyone who can live within the $3 meal ticket has an easy job; he does not have to collect any receipts. The hon. member referred to salesmen or executives taking their clients out for luxurious meals and deducting the cost from their income tax. Obviously in that case receipts must be collected; I do not think there is any other way. The idea of the $3 meal is to make it easy for those who eat a quick hamburger lunch. For those who want to taste French cuisine, we simply ask them to collect receipts so they can deduct the cost.
I thank the hon. member for bringing these points to the attention of the government. We will look into his suggestions. It might be that the floor of $3 should be raised, but whether it be raised to $4 or $5 per meal there will always be those who require larger meals-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but his allotted time has expired. The motion before the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I do now leave the chair till eight o'clock tonight.
At 6.30 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford (for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) that Bill C-47, to amend the Export Development Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be read the third time and do pass.
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, before I called it five o'clock I was speaking about the Export Develop-

ment Corporation and its treatment of those who have small claims. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) illustrated the point and spoke about the large amounts which were going to be lent to corporations to develop and to build companies in foreign countries which might even be competing against us because of their lower labour costs. That is the point I had come to when I called it five o'clock.
I want to deal with the question of how the little fellow- Small Industry- is treated in this regard. I have a claim here before me which goes back to August 3 of 1971. At that time I believe the minister of industry, trade and commerce was the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). At that time there was a shipment of 40 bazoos made to the buyer on the terms of DOP/SD, later revised to 50 per cent 90 days, 50 per cent 150 days. That was the contract. On December 21, 1971, EDC was notified by Otaco Limited about the damaged condition of some goods which had arrived. I am just following this sequence and putting it on the record, and I will have more to say on each one individually.
On November 7, 1972, Otaco's representatives visited EDC and notified EDC that a claim was being placed with the Marine Insurance Company. EDC advised Otaco to send a representative to Kenya to sort out the problem. On January 19, 1973, the commercial secretary of the Canadian High Commission at Nairobi, Kenya, telexed Otaco suggesting that a representative from Otaco visit Kenya to sort out Marine Insurance problems and legal positions. On January 26, 1973, EDC advised Otaco that nothing had been heard from them since the meeting of November 7, 1972. Otaco wrote EDC suggesting that a representative from EDC visit Kenya with Otaco's sales manager. EDC advised Otaco that a trip to Kenya by a representative from EDC would not be justified at that time. Hon. members must realize that with all the contacts EDC and the government must have in Kenya, that type of answer should not have been given to a firm in Ontario.
On February 26, 1973, a claim was placed with EDC for the amount owing to Otaco by Grafton Construction Company. On March 21, 1973, EDC again advised Otaco that Otaco should send a representative to Kenya but that EDC could not consider paying the claim until the dispute regarding the damaged goods was settled. That claim was settled by the insurance company, yet EDC never kept its end of the bargain, nor did the minister and neither did the minister see that EDC kept its end of the bargain in this matter.
I would like to go back to the rules of the game as they are laid down. When goods are delivered in good condition they should be paid for, or if the people who order them go bankrupt, they should still be paid for. This is a part of that policy:
... failure of the buyer to pay ... goods delivered to and accepted by the buyer. . . .failure or refusal of the buyer to accept the goods .. . where such failure is not excused by and does not arise from . .. any breach of contract on the part of the exporter. . . insolvency of the buyer...
The buyer went broke in this situation and was unable to pay, and yet that firm was made to make good the loan at the bank for those bazoos. This contract was entered into, and the
May 31, 1977

claim is claim number 3354. This contract was entered into by the Grafton Construction Company to buy 40 units of bazoos. A bazoo is an all terrain vehicle. It can go on land, water, mud or sand. It is an all purpose vehicle. Those units were sold to the Grafton Construction Company of Nairobi, Kenya. The goods were delivered and marked "Notify Bantam Plant Sales Company Limited". From all of the lengthy correspondence, I was able to learn from the government or its representative in Nairobi what part the Bantam sales organization played in this transaction.
I learned that the Bantam sales organization was to assemble the vehicles. The buyer was the Grafton Construction Company Limited. When the goods were inspected, it was found that some of the crates were damaged as well as some of the bazoos. The crates were landed at Mombasa and placed in bond. The Grafton Construction Company accepted the documents. The insurance company paid for the damaged goods. The insurance company accepted the claim, and for the goods which were damaged it paid $10,000. Surely that was evidence that the goods were all there and accepted. The insurance company accepted the claim, but the Export Development Corporation would not accept it. That left $30,000 still owed by this company.
The claim was pressed, and there was various correspondence. This went on from 1971 to December, 1975, when the last letter was filed, a period covering four years. I want to say to everyone in this House that expensive bureaucracy was never more demonstrated than it was in this little claim for $30,000 which that small firm had to pay. It cost 13 men their jobs. I am illustrating this case because we were talking about big deals involving other corporations amounting to millions of dollars over 15 years. This matter extended over a period of five years. Over and over the minister stated that he was working on it to see what could be done.
The rules which are laid down plainly provide that the Export Development Corporation will reimburse a firm which goes broke, if it bought goods. The company was assured of this at the bank, but who paid? This little firm paid and, as I said, 13 people lost their jobs. Another firm bought this firm out. I say again that the minister should consider this and see that the little guy gets a fair deal. The machines which were built would have been of tremendous help in Kenya where the terrain goes from mud to lakes to streams to rivers, and so forth. Bazoos can go across all of those things. This equipment was needed.
I have a whole file of correspondence here. I only read part of it. I do not intend to put it all on the record. However, I want to say that the auditors in Kenya checked the books and found everything to be in order. Why did they go to all that trouble never to pay that claim? Why all this bureaucracy?
I think it is time we took a look at the bureaucracy we have today and are developing in this country at taxpayer's expense. In this case $30,000 was involved. Two or three trips by the bureaucracy on its expensive aircraft could have been taken, the whole thing could have been paid on the expense incurred on investigation, it could have been written off and EDC could
Judges Act
have kept its word because the insurance company paid the claim.
I am appealing for a square deal not just for multinational corporations, for corporations which are going to borrow millions of dollars over a long period of years, and not for communist countries which are lent money at low rates of interest. I am appealing for small companies in Canada that hire Canadian workmen. They should be looked after on a small claim such as this just as attentively as a big corporation is looked after, as the hon. member for York-Simcoe said today, a company which may be establishing in some foreign country and which will compete with us because of the lower wage scale there. That is my point, and I hope the minister has listened attentively to the case of the little worker who, for five or six years, went through the wringer of bureaucracy and in the final analysis was cheated.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one comment with respect to this matter. 1 feel that perhaps it could have been dealt with earlier if there had not been a difficulty with respect to this bill involving EDC which was first the subject matter of a $1 item in the estimates. The opposition indicated its opposition at that time to this method of legislating, and the Chair upheld in part our position. I will not make any comment beyond that. This bill is the result of the position that was sustained by the Chair at the instance of the opposition.
As the debate on this bill closes I hope the government will learn the lesson of this bill and bear it in mind so that with regard to $1 items in our estimates, items which are an attempt to legislate outside of the normal legislative process, the government will studiously avoid this kind of procedure. I think the record will show that, when speaking for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, at that time I indicated that we would give this bill swift passage when it came. I think the record will also show that we have done so in terms of the debate on this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


JUDGES ACT
Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill C-50, to amend the Judges Act and other acts in respect of

May 31, 1977
Judges Act
judicial matters, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Stanley Ronald Basford: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief in speaking on this bill on third reading. First, I want to commend the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and other members of the official opposition serving on the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs who dealt with this bill, both on second reading and in committee, in an expeditious and thoughtful way.
During the debate on second reading of this bill I spoke of the importance of preserving, and indeed, enhancing the independence of the judiciary. I indicated that this is a responsibility resting equally upon the government, the legislators, and the judiciary itself.
In this bill there are a number of provisions directed to this end. Provision is made for the appointment of a number of additional judges to enable the courts to contend with increasing case loads. Modest salary increases for judges are authorized to maintain judicial salaries at appropriate levels. Further representational allowances and conference allowances are provided to enable judges to keep abreast of developments in the law and to discharge special duties attaching to their offices.
In particular, there are the provisions creating a new regime for the administration of federal judicial affairs and establishing a county court committee of the Canadian Judicial Council.
As proposed in the legislation, the transfer from the Department of Justice to the new commissioner for federal judicial affairs, who is to be appointed only after consultation with the Canadian Judicial Council, that is to say, after consultation with the Chief Justice of Canada and the chief justices of appeal and of the superior courts in all the provinces and to the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada of responsibility for the administrative affairs of federally appointed judges and federally constituted courts is a significant step forward in enhancing the judiciary's independence. It also recognizes the singular importance of the Supreme Court of Canada as the apex of our judicial system.
The creation of the county court committee equally strengthens the Canadian judicial council which was established in 1971 as a forum in which the judiciary itself could assume direct and active responsibility for enhancing the efficiency, quality, and uniformity of judicial services and for the self-discipline of judges throughout Canada. The Committee will provide an opportunity for the county and district

court judges to participate more actively and directly in a number of the council's affairs.
Consequently, passage of this bill will constitute another important step in affirming parliament's commitment to the principle of an independent judiciary, and I wish to commend and thank members of this House who, both during second reading debate and committee consideration of this bill, gave close consideration to the measures provided for in the bill, and who also assisted in ensuring early passage of it by the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be very brief. We had an excellent debate on second reading and the bill received good scrutiny in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I agree with the minister that we must respect the independence of the judiciary. That is part of the separation of powers in our democratic process. But I would remind the minister that things are not always beautiful and academic, as he points out. Many people say they make sacrifices, but there are very few people, and I could name one, who have ever refused a judgeship. Mr. Chambers, head of the firm of the former prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)-that was R.B. Bennett's law firm-turned one down. Not too many have turned one down.
If we are going to get the best men we must realize they are probably only going to earn 50 per cent of the income they earned in a law firm.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or women.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Men or women. Persons.


Mr. Faulkner:: A subtle difference.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am worried about you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Identify him.


Simma Holt: Are you worried or interested?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, if you were a lawyer I would make you Chief Justice because not only do you have the intelligence but you have the ability to understand human behaviour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will call them people. Not many people refuse the call of the wild goose. I remember when I was a young man-that was a long time ago-we used to lie on our backs and watch the geese go south. When it comes to the call of the wild goose very few refuse. Generally speaking, the appointment is offered to the best person. I think we made a great step forward when we referred the matter to the Canadian Bar Association and the bars of the various provinces for recommendation.
May 31, 1977

This bill will increase the salaries of judges, and of course the cost of living goes up the same for them as it does for members of parliament. A committee has been set up to identify matters in which neither the Chief Justice nor judges should become involved.
Our party endorses the bill. It has had very careful scrutiny and study in debate here and in committee. We are happy it is before the House for third reading, and we endorse it all the way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, anything I might have said at this stage of the bill can be found between the lines of what the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has just said, so I shall settle for that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-25, to extend the present laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination and that protect the privacy of individuals, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That Bill C-25, an act to extend the present laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination and that protect the privacy of individuals, be amended in Clause 43, by adding immediately after line 4 at page 25 the following new subclause:
(3) Notwithstanding this Act, or any other Act of the Parliament of
Canada, an appeal shall lie to a Federal Court of Canada from any order or
decision or review of a tribunal, or from any dismissal of a complaint by a
tribunal
(a)	on any ground of appeal involving a question of law;
(b)	on any ground of appeal involving a question of mixed law and fact;
(c)	on any ground of appeal involving a question of fact.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I moved this amendment in committee but we have not received the committee report yet. I would have liked to have seen what was said by all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and to have incorporated some of their remarks in the record. I felt I had the sympathy of members of the committee on all sides. All came to me-I am not breaking any confidence in saying this and I shall not name them but I can say
Canadian Human Rights
that some are smiling now as they look at me-and said they were concerned that there was no appeal.
In my experience at the bar, Mr. Speaker, once there has been a finding of fact by the trial judge, tribunal or administrative body, and providing they have acted within the law and have not usurped the principle of natural justice or waived jurisdiction by some irregularity, and if there is no appeal from the facts, then the decision handed down stands.
I have had some experience with the Federal Court Act, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to read Section 18 into the record. It reads as follows:
The Trial Division has exclusive original jurisdiction ...
The Federal Court was set up to deal with most matters that relate to the federal statutes. There is one exception, however.
I see the minister looking at me and I will tell him what that exception is. I have had experience with it. Under the Broadcasting Act you can apply to any superior court in the province. That is much better than having to go to the Federal Court because few lawyers understand that the rules and regulations are more in tune with the British system than with the Canadian system in the Federal Court.
Section 18 continues as follows:
(a)	to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b)	to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.
Section 18 deals with special damages. A writ of certiorari is where there has been a mistake on the record or a mistake in law; where jurisdiction has been exceeded it can be quashed by procedures. If some person acts beyond their jurisdiction then there is a writ of prohibition. If some administrator will not do what he is supposed to do, there is a writ of mandamus.
I know what the minister is going to say. He will say that this is good legislation that is on the books and that we do not need any procedure of appeal under the Human Rights Act.
Section 28 of the Federal Court Act is quite broad. It reads as follows:
(1) Notwithstanding section 18 or the provisions of any other Act, the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction-
That is the appeal court of the Federal Court. It continues:
-to hear and determine an application to review and set aside a decision or order, other than a decision or order of an administrative nature-
I want the House, and particularly the lawyers here, to listen to that again:
-other than a decision or order of an administrative nature-
Some boards and tribunals-and I will deal with them when 1 deal with the Human Rights Act-make administrative orders and make decisions of an administrative nature.
In committee the minister said that this is sufficient and that we do not have to worry but, Mr. Speaker, I can quote many cases, and if it is of an administrative nature you might just as well forget about any appeal under the act.

May 31, 1977
Canadian Human Rights Section 28 continues:
-not required by law to be made on a judicial or quasi-judicial basis, made by or in the course of proceedings before a federal board, commission or other tribunal, upon the ground that the board, commission or tribunal (a) failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
I read again:
(a)	failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
That is a question of law.
(b)	erred in law in making its decision or order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; or
(c)	based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.
No matter what the minister may say, Section 28 gives the right of appeal to an individual from the decision of an administrative tribunal only on a question of law. Consider the wording of subparagraph (c) " .. . based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact." That language refers to a judge's finding something as a fact where there was no evidence to support such finding; or that he found something as a fact, totally contrary to the evidence. The subparagraph goes on to-say, "-that it made in a perverse or capricious manner-". That language refers to a perverse or capricious finding of fact.
As the minister well knows, there is lots of law saying that a perverse finding of fact involves a question of law. Therefore, the only right of appeal under the Federal Court Act is on a question of law.
I now come to my amendment. It asks that, notwithstanding this act or any other act of the Parliament of Canada, an appeal shall lie to a federal court from any order or decision, on any ground of appeal involving a question of law. That language does not contradict the language of the act. Subparagraph (b) reads: "On any ground of appeal involving a question of mixed law and fact." That point can cause difficulty. What is a question of mixed law and fact? I suggest it would include a perverse finding of fact. The last part of my proposed amendment reads, "(c) on any ground of appeal involving a question of fact."
This evening we are considering Bill C-25, an act to extend the present laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination and that protect the privacy of individuals. In other words, we are considering a human rights bill.
Before I get to the meat of my argument allow me to read Clause 2 of the bill. It says:
The purpose of this Act is to extend the present laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, to the following principles:
(a) every individual should have an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able and wishes to have, consistent with his or her duties and obligations as a member of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex or marital status, or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been 
granted or by discriminatory employement practices based on physical handicap; and
b) the privacy of individuals should be protected to the greatest extent
consistent with public order and well-being.
The intent of that language is almost identical to the intent of the language in the Bill of Rights. Both pieces of legislation will commend themselves to Canadians. Elowever, when you analyze this bill you will note that a tribunal is to be set up, or a commission, and one person can make a decision. What will be the effect of this? Let me give an example.
I have many friends in Calgary, some of them Jewish. One of those people owned a shop a little way from my office. When my children were younger I used to stop at his shop on the way home and buy my kids a little candy and popcorn. We always used to chat about politics. This chap hired, let us say, a Pakistani, and for some unknown reason some people of the community did not like the person he hired. They kept throwing bricks through his window. He had been at that location for 35 years and never encountered trouble. What happened?
Finally, he said to his employee, "Look, I feel sorry for you; we have suffered from discrimination, and you are suffering from it also. All the same, I am afraid I will have to let you go, because nobody will insure my windows. The people of this area are heaving bricks through them almost every night".
What would happen if his employee were to take his case to the human rights tribunal, if this bill were law? I assume this bill will pass. Say one man hears the case and says to my little friend, whom I have known 35 years, "You discriminated against your worker, you fired him because he was of a certain race. We do not know who is throwing the bricks, but I say to you, rehire that man. If you do not, we will close your shop or remove your popcorn machine." This could happen under this human rights bill.
Let us say this happens, as I have recited it, and my little friend loses his popcorn machine and is forced to close down the business he has operated 35 years. Unless this bill is amended, on those facts my little friend would have no right of appeal, because the tribunal say there is no question of law involved and, "I find you have discriminated against Mr. X," whatever the employee's name might be. Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that lawyers in this House and elsewhere have not been up in arms about this provision.
Hearing my submission in committee, the minister, showing either good judgment or political acumen, decided that yes, something must be done in relation to such arbitrary decisions. He said, "I tell you what; I agree that one man on a tribunal might make a mistake. Therefore let us make available the right of appeal." The aggrieved person, if less than three sit on the original tribunal, can appeal to other tribunal members, but these will all be administrators, appointed by order in council, and very likely all Liberals.


An hon. Member:: Crummy Liberals.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I don't know about their being crummy Liberals; but that they will be Liberals you can be certain. I always remember what the right hon. gentleman for Prince
May 31, 1977

Albert said when the government appointed 19 people to the bench, 18 of them Grits. He said it helped him to understand something. When a CBC reporter asked what he meant, he replied, "I never understood the just society. Now I understand it very well. It's just for Grits."
The minister is a great poltician. I have always admired the political urbanity of the Minister of Justice. I remember sitting on a committee with him some years ago out in Banff and saw how smoothly he handled the whole affair. You can say one thing about the Minister of Justice: if there is any difficulty, he will sweep it under the carpet and so dismiss it.


An hon. Member:: He's a Basford.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That's him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is "he".


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member is right. My English is bad. I must apologize to the hon. member who always corrects us in our procedure, grammar, and otherwise. Of course, we do not all have the intellectual capacities of the hon. member in question.
You can bet that the people to be appointed to that commission, or to that tribunal will be Liberals.


An hon. Member:: And highly qualified.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They are highly qualified if they are Grits. I could not agree more. However, they will be shaped and trimmed to make certain decisions. This will be without a right of appeal on facts because 99 per cent of the judgments, providing they are acting within the scope of their jurisdiction as a board, if it can sit as one man, are on findings of fact.
I think I know some law. Hon. members flattered me this afternoon. Tonight they will criticize me. That is typical of this place. How can one person make a mistake on law when under the act he has a right to find the facts? Once he finds the facts, that is the decision. You can check Sections 18 or 28 of the Federal Act and you will see there is no right of appeal.
Once I appealed to the legal instinct of the Minister of Justice. He said that maybe he had made a mistake, and he repented. When the Minister of Justice repents, it is quite a repentance. He said "We will allow you to appeal to your friends." It goes to the same old board, the same old club that belongs to the same group. That is no appeal at all.
We are dealing with human rights. Any individual, whether it be an employer, employee or unemployed person should have the right of appeal. The Minister of Justice does not agree.
In the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, we live together. We flatter each other. We are lawyers. We see eyeball to eyeball. I have been a member of that committee for quite a while. But there is one thing I have learned over the years. Once the government decides to do something, it does it.
This bill was not drawn up by the minister. He probably did not see it until it came to his office. It was drawn by a bunch
Canadian Human Rights
of bureaucrats. However, he has to justify it. I will tell you why. If he goes against those who tell him what to do, do you know what happens? They have a little discussion over coffee. They say that the minister is acting rather queer, going against what they are doing. He therefore has to stay within the terms of reference of his department. If we were the government, I guess we would have to do the same thing. However, that does not mean that I cannot raise the kind of grievance I am raising now.
Surely the minister is not going to tell me that the commissioners appointed to that tribunal will be perfect, great men who never have any ideas. Do you think there is anyone in this Chamber or in all Canada who does not have any prejudices? We are all a part of all that we have met, each is needed by each one, and nothing is God alone, said Emerson. We are a part of our environment.
Some person who sits alone makes a decision. We have the right, and we got that through the Conservatives, to appeal to three other people in the tribunal. However, I repeat, they all belong to the same club, the same factory, the same everything.
Why does the government deny my amendment? What is it afraid of? I will tell you. What government supporters fear most is that once they set up this administrative body they do not want any interference. According to Sections 18 and 28 of the federal act, there is no right of appeal from a finding of fact. Ninety percent of the decisions made by administrative boards, superior trial courts and county courts are on findings of fact.
There is a judge in Alberta who is now retired, God bless him. He was so frightened of an appeal from his judgments that whoever he would find for, the plaintiff for example, he would say, "I believe the plaintiff and disbelieve the witnesses for the defence. These are the facts."
The Court of Appeal would know it was a perverse finding. However, because of the law there could be no appeal from a finding of fact because trial judges are able to find those facts on the evidence. They would look at the witnesses and, when making their decisions, they would say who was telling the truth and who was not. Therefore the appeal would be thrown out of the court.
1 will go further. In my own province there were trial judges so shaped and trimmed in their understanding of that kind of jurisprudence they could make a finding of fact against you that you could win in the court of appeal in Alberta. However, the Supreme Court of Canada followed the British practice and upset the judgment of the court of appeal. They always reinstated the original judgment.
We had a judge who is now retired, a great gentleman. I will not name him. He never wrote a judgment. If he was going to find for the plaintiff in an automobile accident, he would say "I find negligence. I give the plaintiff $50,000 and costs and double column five". If it went to the Supreme Court with no reasons for the judgment, they would say the judge must have instructed himself correctly, that he must have understood the

May 31, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
evidence and found the proper facts. Once that judge learned that was the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, he never wrote a judgment, only one line. He was a very brilliant man of jurisprudence, very able and very understanding of our system. He understood its weaknesses and its greatness.
There are not many in the Chamber this evening on any side. Where are the lawyers who have read this bill without the right of appeal? I want to repeat, we are dealing with human rights. What we are dealing with is the same as the Bill of Rights. This bill states there will not be any discriminatory practices based on race. You and I know what that means- national or ethnic origin. You and 1 know what that means- colour or religion, age and sex, marital status, or conviction for an offence, etc. etc. And one person on an administrative board is to make a decision. That was the way the bill was drawn, but the Minister of Justice is going to stand and say "Oh, I gave them half a cake." He gave us nothing. You appeal, now, to his brothers and they will be three.
And when we have a bill going through on human rights I am shocked that outside of one in the NDP who stands for civil rights, a great gentleman and a great parliamentarian, there should be no one in this House of all of them, the great philosophers and supporters of human rights; the rest are not here, standing and supporting my amendment. Only one, a stalwart, a great Canadian.


An hon. Member:: What is his name?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, there is only one here. He is from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I see a Liberal now sitting at the back behind the NDP to back him up. They do not seem to be doing that in Ontario. I am shocked at this great party, and there is an election going on in Ontario; I will excuse them. I know that, but I sat in the committee, and where were they? They were absent.


James Hugh Faulkner: As usual.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 1 don't know about "as usual" but they were absent and they did not raise their voices. There were Liberals who came to me, and I am not going to name them because things were said to me in confidence. I will say to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) that there were Liberals who came to my office and said "You were right but we can do nothing about it because the discipline is there."
I can see what is going to happen. This bill will be rammed through the House of Commons. The minister will ride either a black horse or a white horse, whatever horse he wants to ride, and say, "I am the saviour of human rights in this nation." Yet he is passing a bill which does not give the right of appeal to any individual whenever he stands, whatever his race is, whatever his colour is, whatever his religion is, whatever his employment is, whether he is an employer or an employee. It is not good enough.
In all the years I have been in this House I have never been more serious. This is a denial of natural justice and I urge the

minister to reconsider his position. Don't come along with this wiffling, waffling amendment saying we are going to allow you to appeal to a bunch of other members of the commission when they are all in the same family, appointed in the same way, under the same conditions. God help us if that is the law we are going to implement as human rights legislation in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened transfixed to the speech made by my hon. friend from Calgary North. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yew-chuk) said it was the best speech of the day. He spoke with eloquence. He spoke with conviction, he spoke from a long background in the practice of the law, and 1 think he brought home as forcefully as anyone could in this House the importance of distinguishing in our jurisprudence between an administrative tribunal with judicial overtones and the judiciary itself.
There is in practice and in fact a difference between an administrative tribunal on the one hand, however well inten-tioned its members may be, and the traditions which surround the judges and our courts. I join with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) in appealing to the minister and to the government to consider the amendment which has been put on the order paper. I would remind the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) if I can do so, with the greatest respect, that this is the first time that there has been a human rights bill of this magnitude covering the matters which this bill covers within the federal jurisdiction.
Listen to part of Clause 2. It says:
(a)	every individual should have an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able and wishes to have, consistent with his or her duties and obligations as a member of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex or marital status, or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or by discriminatory employment practices based on physical handicap; and
(b)	the privacy of individuals should be protected to the greatest extent consistent with public order and well-being.
I do not intend to stand in this House and denigrate the sentiments of the minister with respect to this bill because it is one which affects every one of our lives. Yesterday in this House I raised the case of a person who feels discriminated against because of colour. I would not want that person's future to be decided on the basis of an arbitrary decision within the bureaucracy, however well intentioned, and I would not want to see that man denied access to the courts of this country. If that recourse were denied to him he would harbour within his soul for the rest of his days the suspicion that he had not been fairly dealt with.
I say to the minister that this is the first attempt, and a noble attempt indeed, to bring within our jurisdiction, at least at the federal level, some recognition of equality among individuals before the law regardless of their station. What is so wrong if that is the case? What is so wrong with acceding to
May 31, 1977

what my hon. friend from Calgary North has asked, and allowing those who must deal with this tribunal in one way or another, at least at the beginning while we test this new system, the right which has been granted historically, as it ought to have been granted, that is, access to the courts?
The amendment is broad, but the principles with which we are dealing are broad and, as I say, it will affect all of us in one way or another. This is the government's first attempt. The hon. member for Calgary North is absolutely right. Even within the judicial process there are occasions when people walk away from the courtroom feeling aggrieved. It is pretty hard to tell a person, as I have had to from time to time, why they lost their case. It is hard to get them to understand why, in a matter involving dollars and cents, or freedom, or relations between individuals, the court has found the facts against them and that another court cannot deal with the facts. In the mind of that person that is dreadfully wrong. It is no comfort for him to be told that had there been an error in law there would be a chance to go to another court and appear before a different set of judges.
We are not talking here about matters of dollars and cents or about relations between individuals. We are talking about the relationship between society and individuals. This is why the hon. member for Calgary North has gone so far in his amendment as to deal not only with errors in law which are to be the subject of appeal, and which I hope is nothing unusual, but errors involving mixed law and fact as well as errors involving a question of fact.
In this first attempt we are making to legislate broadly in the field of human rights we are saying to the people of this country that we have done our very best to ensure that all avenues are kept open to them, that no one avenue has been closed. If the amendment does not pass, then in terms of this new approach to that which human beings normally take for granted-the relationship of one individual to another, fairness of society and a whole host of other things-we will be saying that such matters ought not to be a matter for the court.
I appeal to the Minister of Justice to reconsider his position overnight on this matter. I am sure he has received representations from members of his own party on this subject. I cannot imagine some members from his own party on the committee, for all of whom I have great respect, not making representations to him privately in regard to this provision. I ask him to consider those representations as well as those put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North. I do not want this bill to leave this parliament deficient. I want the bill to leave this parliament as complete a first step as it possibly can be. I am afraid that unless there is couched within the bill those provisions suggested by the hon. member for Calgary North in his amendment, then the bill will be deficient and the government will have reason to regret its failure to support this amendment.
I am not suggesting that it would not be other than an administrative inconvenience to have an extra ground of
Canadian Human Rights
appeal. I am not suggesting that there would not be some delay. But it would be a delay occasioned by people who felt themselves legitimately aggrieved by a decision. I think it important that we not let administrative inconvenience stand in the way of the proper administration of justice.
The Minister of Justice has talked from time to time about the two roles he performs. As Minister of Justice he has administrative responsibility for a department of government. He is also the Attorney General of Canada, which puts him above party. It puts him above considerations of mere convenience. It puts him in the position where he has to consider the administration of justice in a way perhaps different from any other member of the House of Commons.
It is in that spirit that I am happy to support this amendment which is being so ably presented by the hon. member for Calgary North. And it is in that spirit that I ask the Minister of Justice to consider the amendment carefully and to stand in his place before the end of this debate and agree it should be placed into the statute law that is to be eventually approved by the House of Commons.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise and support my friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) in the amendment he has moved at the report stage of Bill C-25. This is a bill to extend the present laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination and that protect the privacy of individuals. The short title of the bill is the "Canadian Human Rights Act".
As my hon. friend from Calgary North so ably pointed out, how can you start to define in a proper way human rights when in the interpretation clause of the bill legal rights are denied or restricted? In terms of the new area which this bill reaches into trying to remove discrimination of various forms, it is rather ironic, to say the least, that in attempting to control or eliminate discrimination the bill takes away something which has been fundamental in almost every bill, namely, the right of appeal to a higher tribunal.
I agree with my hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton that undoubtedly if this amendment were carried an appeal to the Federal Court might occasion delay. But, Mr. Speaker, what is a little delay in terms of defining human rights and making sure that errors are corrected when, on the other side of the coin, there could very well be a denial of justice and a restriction of freedom?
On this first day of extended sittings we are endeavouring to remove some of the legislative logjam along the road to June 30 so that we can celebrate our national birthday on July 1. Thank God, Mr. Speaker, the Centennial Flame continues to burn, because if we were to depend upon the inconsistency of the government it would be an on again off again thing. Your Honour may be wondering what this has to do with human rights. I suggest that the members of the House at this time have become over saturated not with just human rights but with the right of Canadians to have a Canada that extends from coast to coast. I could comment perhaps a little longer on that.

May 31, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
The moon is almost full outside. It is ironic. This year we are going to turn it on and have a July 1 celebration. Last year we turned it off.
Sometime I want to make a speech to my Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about his inconsistencies on national unity and many other things. But tonight we are not talking about national unity. We are talking about human rights in all their form, colour, gender and mode of employment. We are going to have an administrative tribunal to define and enforce those rights. It is only to be subject to redress by some fellow brethren in the same level of the court, with no appeal to a higher court.
It is paradoxical to move into this very sensitive area, which is also an area of personal conflict. We move into this area to try to help individuals. We are trying to help them by defining and restricting discrimination. We are going to remove something almost every commonlaw lawyer looks at and knows, through experience, is necessary. I am referring to the right of appeal to a higher tribunal. However principled, however just, and however experienced the brethren in court are, there is a necessity to have that right of appeal.
If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) says tonight the implementation of this amendment of my hon. friend will delay some of the proceedings under the Canadian Human Rights Act, what is a little delay when you are talking about human rights? What is a little delay when you are talking about a potential denial of justice? What is a little delay when you are talking about a potential restriction of freedom? I hope the Minister of Justice, either tonight or tomorrow, after having had a chance to reflect on this, will tell this House he is not breaking new ground by going along with the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North. Almost every judicial bill has an appeal provision. Why do we take away the fundamental help which an individual can look to when every other source of help is gone? I am referring to the right of appeal to a higher court.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We have no experience in this field in terms of an administrative tribunal implementing this bill. It is only a bill, it is not an act yet. We are in a brand new area. That is another reason why we have to tread sensitively and build in protections down the road.
In another debate in this House the minister and other members on both sides of this House took very firm positions on something called capital punishment. We have all gone through the trauma and the emotion of that debate. 1 have faced the dilemma of the debate on the gallows on three or four different occasions in the eight or nine years 1 have been a member. Every time emotion builds up, and every time members wrestle with their consciences. Individual members have put their own consciences ahead of the collective conscience of Canadians.
I have respected those who were against capital punishment, but one of the salient arguments was the fact that you could always have a terminal error in the area of capital crime, with capital punishment at the end of the road. That could not be redressed, and that was an argument I could understand. I might not have accepted it and I certainly do not believe the judicial system today is anything like it was ten, 15 or 50 years ago when the underprivileged, the underdog, who was so often the accused, had not much chance at all in the judicial process.
The scales of justice have pretty effectively swung to rehabilitation and reform, which are high on the list of judicial process. Retribution and punishment certainly have been downplayed. In the former debate one of the salient arguments was that you could have capital punishment because you might make a mistake. We were told, "Make sure there is always an appeal; you might even have the final commutation, that is, executive commutation through the royal prerogative so that someone would not hang. We all know there are cases of that mistake occurring. In the last ten years there were even more cases documented where the killer, who was convicted once, was let out early, and he killed again. That is one of the reasons why I switched my stand on capital punishment.
It was the assessment of the potential of trial error and judicial error which said, "Let the condemned man have every right of appeal, right up to the highest person in the land", for example, the sovereign, for royal clemency.
Members to the left of me are usually provocative and prolonged-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And vociferous.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -and vociferous in their sincere defence of human rights and different types of rights. 1 do not fault them for that; but I do not know if it is the full moon outside that has got them all down by the Centennial Flame looking toward a potential June 30 recess in honour of July 1, which we are going to celebrate this year. We are going to be Canadians again this year. Last year it was not in style, this year it is in style.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I hear moans, groans, hee-haws and guffaws. Did you go to a birthday party on July 1 last year? No, you did not, because our Prime Minister said-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest the hon. member should return to the terms of the amendment.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: With respect, Mr. Speaker, 1 am talking about human rights. I am not going to have anyone guffaw and hee-haw at me and then have them protected by His Honour on something as fundamental as my right to celebrate the birthday of my country on July 1, just because this Prime Minister is on again off again Finnegan, and on again off again Pierre.


Simma Holt: The Chair has ruled that it is irrelevant.

May 31, 1977


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 1 suggest the hon. member should refer to the Prime Minister of this country by his title and not by his first name.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Well, Mr. Speaker, 1 was not calling anyone "Pierre Elliott Trudeau". In any event, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) used to be an author of some note.


An hon. Member:: She still is.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: She is an author of some note with a newspaper in the west. She fought for rights in police courts, was interested in the drug laws of the land, and in problems of juvenile delinquency. She was very active, vociferous, and made quite a name for herself in her concern for rights. 1 hope she stands in this House and says something positive about how she can support a bill, or conversely how she can deny the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North which gives the right of appeal to the Federal Court.


Simma Holt: Why did you not bring it in 20 years ago?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) has the floor for the purpose of making a speech.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I did not want to get into hot water here. I am glad you intervened, Mr. Speaker, because sometimes I need protection and help, especially when the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway gets after my tail.


An hon. Member:: Watch what you say.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Be that as it may I would like to conclude.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Hon. members opposite applaud. Their party used to be a party which was liberal on rights. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not rule me out of order for mentioning John Stuart Mill. He used to be a liberal theoretician in the classical sense of the word. A fellow called Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a very eminent member of this House and once the Prime Minister of this land. Stuart Garson was an eminent minister of justice in a then Liberal government. Louis St. Laurent was a classical liberal in the best sense of the word, and a lawyer to boot. Those gentlemen could not stomach this type of bill, which restricts the right of the individual and which does not redress a wrong which could be perpetrated by an administrative tribunal.
1 wonder how many hon. members appreciate what the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North says. The amendment reads as follows:
That Bill C-25, An Act to extend the present laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination and that protect the privacy of individuals, be amended in Clause 43, by adding immediately after line 32 at page 22 the following new subclause: "(3) Notwithstanding this Act, or any other Act of the Parliament of
Canada, an appeal shall lie to a Federal Court of Canada from any order or
Canadian Human Rights
decision or review of a tribunal, or from any dismissal of a complaint by a
tribunal
(a)	on any ground of appeal involving a question of law;
(b)	on any ground of appeal involving a question of mixed law and fact;
(c)	on any ground of appeal involving a question of fact."
This amendment is said to break new ground and will create difficulty and administrative hangups in the Department of Justice. It is said it might be a cloak around the new administrative tribunal which might adversely affect the rights of individuals. All this amendment provides is an appeal to the Federal Court on a question of law, on a question of fact, or on a question of mixed law and fact. I think all of us in this House would be prepared to delay the implementation of an administrative tribunal rather than have a denial of justice, and as far as I am concerned I am prepared to support the amendment of my hon. friend because an administrative delay does not compare with restriction of individual freedoms. We cannot have an effective administrative tribunal which tries to protect human rights if we take away the right of appeal.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment without reservation or qualification. I am disappointed and surprised at what I perceive to be the minister's reaction to it.
I would like to deal with the subject matter under three or four different headings. As a lawyer I have practised before administrative tribunals on many occasions. As the minister will remember from his law school days, the nature of an administrative tribunal is somewhat of a jungle. Law students and law schools approach this subject with either trepidation on the one hand or fear and loathing on the other, because no one really knows how to deal with an administrative tribunal.
In law school we deal with remarkable things. We deal with extraordinary remedies, certiorari, mandamus, and that type of thing. There is no history, precedent or codification dealing with the operation of these tribunals. Some have operated effectively, and some have been disastrous. The point which I think is terribly important to make is that what is sometimes regarded as a cliche-justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done-is far more than a cliche. The perception of those who might find themselves in front of this tribunal is equally important as the substance of that tribunal's work. Let us remember that if those who might find themselves in the very extraordinary and emotional position of being before that tribunal are inhibited from doing so because of their perception of that tribunal, then this legislation is self-defeating.
I agree with the preamble of this bill. I do not think anyone in the House will challenge it, but if those who are potentially before the tribunal are deterred from availing themselves of its provisions, then this legislation is counter-productive. What would deter them from availing themselves of the protection of this tribunal? Well, certainly one thing would be if it is regarded as somewhat of a star chamber. There have been administrative tribunals of that nature, and I will name one, the CRTC.

May 31, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
The atmosphere before the CRTC prohibits the free expression of those who choose to challenge its rulings. We have CRTC hearings in Ottawa which decide the fate of people right across the country. Who is to come from my riding, from Calgary North, from the minister's riding, or from Annapolis Valley to appear before that tribunal in order to express freely their concerns about its deliberations?
Another one is the National Energy Board, which is charged with a terribly important function, but the atmosphere there is one in which no one but a lawyer would be comfortable. That is why I think we owe a great tribute to Mr. Justice Berger, who created a quasi-administrative tribunal and provided an atmosphere for people in all walks of life to be comfortable in while expressing their opinions about the future of their country and their communities.
With regard to appeals, it seems to me that the perception of an appeal to a group of confreres of the sole arbitrator has to be negative. As the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) pointed out, it is all in the club. At least that is the perception. 1 do not question the integrity of those people, but I can see what the perception would be. Why should the so-called appeal board overrule the decision of one of its fellows?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Are they going to do it over lunch?


William Herbert Jarvis: That would be terribly counter-productive to the stated purposes of this legislation.
It is my view that a judicial appeal helps an administrative tribunal. An appeal to a court of appeal, for example, is almost like going to school for those who sat on the administrative tribunal in the original case because there are many cases where, without a lack of integrity or keen desire to be an effective tribunal, these people go astray. They get off on tangents. They do make mistakes, not just in law but also in their terms of reference. They make mistakes on the amount of evidence they allow in, and there are all kinds of things which lead an administrative tribunal astray. It has happened over and over again with innumerable tribunals. Therefore it appears to me that the right of appeal which is proposed in this amendment by the hon. member for Calgary North makes sense.
I think a good example of helping an administrative tribunal become more effective has been the system of possibly the best known administrative tribunal in Ontario. That is the Ontario Municipal Board, a very important administrative tribunal to the various communities of Ontario. Many of its decisions have been appealed successively, but I have never heard any of the board members say anything else but that those appeals were a great assistance to them in their future deliberations. Therefore, I earnestly solicit the minister's consideration of this amendment.
The minister must feel that there is some basis for an appeal, otherwise he would not have agreed in committee to an appeal to a board of three members. If he agrees in principle

with an appeal, I would earnestly hope that he would agree, or at least consider, a judicial appeal which under this bill in particular makes much more sense than an appeal to three fellow board members from the original board member. As one of the earlier speakers said-it might have been either the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) or the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan)-perhaps the minister could sleep on it, and sleep well on it, because this amendment, as proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North, has a great deal to commend it in terms of justice and equity and in terms of being a useful tool to increase the effective administration of the original tribunal, and finally, in terms of the perception of those men and women on the tribunal who will be seeking a sense of integrity. Surely they deserve nothing less than that.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, this seems like a very simple argument. The amendment is so simple and clear to me and to anyone who has practised law or is still practising law that it must be quite obvious what is taking place.
The amendment has already been quoted several times here tonight. It is a request for an appeal to the Federal Court of Canada on the basis of facts, on the basis of law, or an appeal on the basis of a mixture of facts and law. What we are concerned about are the human rights that are referred to in Clause 2 of the bill. This too might have been recited on several occasions this evening. My only regret is that the clause is not complete.
There is so much discrimination in this country today. One that I know of and one of which I have been a victim is political affiliation, or lack of it. I am certain that the committee, of which I am not a member, should have considered it and put it in the clause. But be that as it may, any decision that will be made by officials appointed by the government or by another group of government officials is a decision made by an administrative tribunal. Any lawyer, official, or union official who has appeared before appointed tribunals knows the errors in facts and the errors in law, or errors in fact and law that they make, and there are many of them. I will give you an example of one.
The review committees before the Canada Pension Plan and the various boards of referees across this country are an example. Goodness gracious, if people were to exercise their right of appeal, we should be in one heck of a mess in this country. Nevertheless, these are human rights, and it is important. Someone said here that we are starting down a new road. Let us get on that road and stay on it.
All I can say is that this amendment, which is fair and equitable, and which attempts to give some justice to a bill which should try to give justice to the people, and which attempts to see justice done, should be approved. I suggest that members of the House and the minister should acknowledge that there is a gap and a loophole in this proposed law which should be filled if human rights are to be protected. If the purpose of the bill, the preamble and the title are to mean anything, and if human rights mean anything to parliamen-
May 31, 1977

tarians, then we should approve this amendment. If we do not pass this amendment, the entire purport and intent of the bill will be useless. Certainly a judicial appeal will mean a great deal more than an administrative appeal. A judicial appeal before a judge in the Federal Court will mean that you will get a proper interpretation and a proper study of the real facts and of the law.
1 have no alternative but to support this amendment because it is just, and without it the bill would be unjust.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, may I speak very briefly on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). First may I say that I have enjoyed this debate immensely with the praise for the bill from the hon. member for Calgary North, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). They said what a terribly important bill this is and what an important initiative by the government it was to put before parliament a bill dealing with the human rights of Canadians. What a contrast! I am delighted that hon. members opposite have, in the course of debating this bill and listening in committee, learned something about the bill, because at second reading, if one wants to look back at the record, this bill was pooh-poohed as being unnecessary.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is nonsense.


Stanley Ronald Basford: And they are the party of the great hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who wrote the Bill of Rights. They said that that was all that was really necessary and that this bill was quite unnecessary. I am delighted that the opposition has had a change of heart and has recognized tonight that this is a bold and important initiative of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member for Calgary North just said that that is nonsense. Let me read from the proceedings of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of May 10 at page 17:5,77. The hon. member for Calgary North cross-examined me and went through a whole course of questions to me and to one of my consultants, Professor Walter Tarnopolsky, who has worked on the bill with me. He is a special consultant to the Department of Justice and a Canadian representative to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. This is what the hon. member for Calgary North said:
How does it strenghten the law to give human rights to the average Canadian?
It is a great question compared to what he has argued here this evening. Later on he said:
With the greatest respect, and I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the bill, I am just asking you what it adds, other than what the Bill of Rights has already done?
Throughout the course of that cross-examination there was the allegation that the bill was unnecessary.
Canadian Human Rights


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. As the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Justice, the minister should not take things out of context. I recall that he used to do that when he was a backbencher, but I would think that now he has been raised to the exalted position of the Minister of Justice he would not take things out of context. I will tell him that if he reads my speech with any degree of honesty he will find that my only criticism of the bill is what they will do by order in council. If he is honest he will know that I co-operated throughout the debate on the bill. The bill went through the committee expeditiously. It is true that I said the bill covered many things that the Bill of Rights covers. But I am saying to the minister: let us get the facts. He is denying in a bill that covers human rights, and natural justice, the right of appeal of the average Canadian.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have previously stated many times in this House that the hon. member for Calgary North has been helpful and constructive at the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs with this and other bills. That is a matter that I have put on the public record many times. For purposes of this debate I am also quoting the public record of the cross-examination of me in the committee. I mention it in order to record my delight this evening at the recognition by hon. members opposite that this is an immensely important measure to the welfare of the average Canadian and an important measure to taking further steps to establish justice, fairness, and equality for all Canadians.
It has been said in the debate on the amendment this evening that there is no right of appeal in Bill C-25. This is utter nonsense. Under the Human Rights Act, the tribunals and their decisions are subject to the Federal Court Act.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Under Sections 28 and 18; I read them.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Subject to Sections 28 and 18, as the hon. member for Calgary North just indicated. Let me read into the record what section 28 provides. Section 18 deals with access to the trial court of the Federal Court for the use of prerogative writs in the supervision of administrative tribunals. Section 28 reads:
(1) Notwithstanding section 18 or the provisions of any other Act, the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application to review and set aside a decision or order, other than a decision or order of an administrative nature not required by law to be made on a judicial or quasi-judicial basis, made by or in the course of proceedings before a federal board, commission or other tribunal, upon the ground that the board, commission or tribunal
(a) failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or
refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
The hon. member for Calgary North heckled me, saying that it did not provide appeal for natural justice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not say that. Mr. Speaker, a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Calgary North rises on a point of order.

May 31, 1977
Canadian Human Rights


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wish the Minister of Justice would stay with the facts. I am sure he knows the point I made. 1 do not know how long the minister practised. I am told it was two years before he became a member of parliament, but I am sure with a law degree he would know that everything in Section 28, no matter how he dishes it up, is a question of law. What I am saying and what I said is that I want to appeal from one person sitting in a tribunal alone. He said in committee that there could be an appeal to three-which is all part of the hanky-panky nonsense when we are dealing with human rights-on a question of fact. He can dish up perverse facts, capricious facts. They are all questions of law. I would hope that the Minister of Justice has not forgotten his first-year classes in law.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that is not a question of privilege, it is debate, with deference. The hon. member for Calgary North made his speech in support of his amendment and I should like to make mine. If I misunderstood his heckle, then I withdraw my remarks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Good.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I do quote and make clear to this House- because in some of the speeches it has not been made clear- that there is the right of appeal from a decision of the commission or any of its tribunals on the basis that the commission or tribunal, as Section 28 provides:
(a)	failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or
refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
(b)	erred in law in making its decision or order, whether or not the error
appears on the face of the record; or
(c)	based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a
perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.
It has been suggested in this debate that Section 28 is not very useful; that it is really not an appeal and therefore we should accept this amendment to supplant it. Since that section was passed in 1971, 1,507 cases have been heard by it on questions of natural justice, errors of law and decisions or orders based on an erroneous finding of fact, including decisions against the Canadian Transport Commission, the Department of Manpower and Immigration or the Immigration Appeal Board, actions against the Public Service Commission, and a whole range of administrative tribunals that are subject to judicial supervision as provided in this section.
If, as is alleged, Section 28 is not very effective, I doubt that 1,507 people would have gone to the trouble and expense-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, again the Minister of Justice is leaving the wrong impression with the media, hoping to bail himself out. I should like leave to ask the minister a question. He dealt with 1,507 cases. I suggest to him that they were all on points of law-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: That is not a point of order but a point of debate.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -and secondly, all of those were motions on a question of taxation. Let us be honest. Let us not misrepresent the facts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member for Calgary North that he is debating. That is not a point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, let the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice come clean with the facts and be honest tonight.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants the facts, I have with me a very comprehensive statement of those statistics which is far too extensive to read into the record. I would ask leave of the House to table it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No. I want them explained.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Now the hon. member does not want them. I indicated at committee that of the some 1,500 cases, 1,100 involved appeals against decisions made under the Immigration Act, which is surely one of the very basic human rights of this country. It has nothing whatsoever to do with income tax and the Department of National Revenue. I believe that was 1,103, speaking from memory-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Taxation cases.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -involved manpower and immigration. I would ask the hon. member for Calgary North to pay some attention to the facts and some attention to the record of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where these facts were broken down. It was clear that the majority of cases using Section 28 involved manpower and immigration decisions, a basic human right in this country.
May I suggest that because of Section 28 this amendment is unnecessary. 1 should like to quote from the brief that the Canadian Bar Association presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It had a number of comments to make on Bill C-25, including a section on appeal. They claimed that the bill did not seem to provide for any right of appeal and recommended that appeal should be available on questions of law or on jurisdictional facts, from decisions of the tribunal. They questioned whether judicial review of the tribunal's decision would provide a speedier remedy.
Let me deal with those three sentences and those three recommendations. In complaining that the bill does not seem to provide for any right of appeal, the Canadian Bar Assoca-tion failed to take cognizance of Section 18 or Section 28 of the Federal Court Act. They recommended that appeals should be available on questions of law or jurisdictional facts from decisions of the tribunal. But those two grounds, law and jurisdictional facts, are clearly contained within the rights of appeal provided in Section 28. In fact Section 28 goes further.
The third sentence says, "We question whether judicial review of the tribunal's decision would provide a speedier

May 31, 1977

remedy." That means that they question the very amendment the hon. member has proposed, because that amendment would provide for a complete judicial review of every decision, and the Canadian Bar Association says that it questions whether a judicial review of the tribunal's decision would provide a speedier remedy.
The hon. member for Calgary North can get up, if he wishes, claim he is a great legal expert, and say that this is a very basic legal question. He can accuse me of not fulfilling my obligations or duties as Minister of Justice if I resist his amendment. But 1 say that the Canadian Bar Association, in its representations made to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, in effect recommended against the adoption of his amendment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They didn't say that at all.


Stanley Ronald Basford: They supported the two grounds, or those grounds of appeal provided in section 28 of the Federal Court Act.


An hon. Member:: Read the entire comment.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I just did. That was the entire comment of the Canadian Bar Association on the question of appeal.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That was one of your own Liberals speaking. A Liberal said that.


Stanley Ronald Basford: May I touch on why we, in this country, have established human rights commissions and human rights tribunals?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I still think Em right.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In all the provinces of Canada we have set up human rights commissions and passed human rights acts, and the idea has been to develop anti-discrimination programs within the jurisdiction of those provinces. Now, following the actions of human rights commissions and tribunals, we have established an administrative organization known as an administrative tribunal. This can come to the rescue and assistance of those in society against whom discrimination is practised. Mr. Speaker, we are embarked on a highly specialized area of endeavour.
What is the concept of this bill? It is the promotion and development of affirmative action programs, and the promotion and development of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value, both for men and women, without discrimination. It has been found from experience that this sort of thing is most effectively done through human rights commissions, tribunals or inquiries-whatever they may be called.
I quote the evidence given on May 19 before the committee by Professor Tarnopolsky, whom I have already mentioned. After the committee had wondered if human rights could better be advanced by the courts or by the sort of commission being proposed, he said, among other things:
The condition that had occurred right up through the enactment of human rights legislation in the provinces was that it was impossible to get redress in the courts
Canadian Human Rights
for acts of discrimination. The same thing was true as based upon the civil law of Quebec because it was based on the common law of the other provinces. It was specifically for this reason that the provincial legislatures all moved into the area of the administrative tribunals, as the minister mentioned .. .
The experience showed repeatedly in the province of Quebec where there are three cases, in Ontario there were two cases-and this was even after the enactment of the human rights legislation-and a certain number in Saskatchewan. But when the cases were taken to the courts, it was a totally new approach to comprehend the objects of human rights legislation. I would not want to say it was failure to comprehend because that would be unfair to the courts, but at least it was such a totally new approach that the provincial legislatures found it just unsatisfactory and moved to the field of the administrative agency.
The provinces of this country have had to legislate in this area. They have introduced anti-discrimination legislation and human rights legislation, and implemented this legislation through administrative tribunals, with limited rights of appeal. That has been found the only effective way to deal, in this specialized area, with the problems of those who suffer from discrimination. We are building on the experience of the ten provinces and that, exactly, is why we are proposing the provisions in Bill C-25. We are proposing the setting up of an administrative tribunal; the human rights commission and its tribunals. They will operate in a specialized area, with limited rights of review or appeal under the Federal Court Act, covering questions of natural justice, jurisdiction, errors of law and decisions based on erroneous findings of fact.
I suggest, in spite of the rhetoric from members opposite, that the approach embodied in Bill C-25 is based on the experience of ten provinces and ten jurisdictions in this country.
There has been some criticism within the committee and within this debate of the provisions of Section 28. I made it clear publicly and made it specifically clear in committee that the whole of the Federal Court Act is under review, including the jurisdiction of the court and the exercise of powers by the court in line with discussions and consultations I have had with provincial attorneys general.
If, as some members suggest, Section 28 is somehow deficient, which I do not concede for the purposes of this discussion, the time to amend it is when the Federal Court Act is before this parliament, which will be the next session.
The whole purpose of the Federal Court Act was to develop a federal court and a federal court of appeal that would provide a uniform judicial supervision over all of the federal administrative tribunals. I submit it would be unwise to go against that trend and go back to the old days where we had different rights of appeal.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the minister answer a question?


Stanley Ronald Basford: When I am finished, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That shows he is afraid to answer the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please! The minister said he would accept a question after he finishes his speech.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But this is the time to ask it.

May 31, 1977
Canadian Human Rights


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It would be wrong to reverse the trend of the last six years where we have endeavoured, through the Federal Court Act and amendments to various statutes, to provide uniform, consistent, co-ordinated judicial supervision of administrative tribunals. It would be wrong to reverse that trend and begin establishing different rights of appeal for each of the different federal tribunals.
If the rights of appeal are to be changed in the Federal Court Act, they should be done in the Federal Court Act itself-applicable to all administrative tribunals.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Isn't that awful.


Stanley Ronald Basford: If the procedures of appeal and the rights of appeal are wrong for the human rights commission as suggested-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Rubbish.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -they are equally wrong for the immigrants to this country under the Immigration Act. They are equally wrong for people who have rights and needs under the transportation policies implemented by the transportation commissions. Therefore this piecemeal approach suggested by members opposite is one that is not to be recommended.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: How many immigration appeal boards are there in Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I guess the hon. member was not listening. There were 1,100 appeals.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: How many immigration appeal boards are there?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Minister of Justice has the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, it's too bad he does.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Concern was expressed in the committee about one-man tribunals. The committee discussed and accepted a system whereby there would be an appeal from a one-man tribunal. That is a proper solution to that problem.
The employer or the claimant not liking the decision of a one-man tribunal would have two remedies. He could either appeal to a three man tribunal or exercise his right under Section 28 and appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. This question of appeal was examined very carefully by the committee. The committee heard not only my evidence but the evidence of Dr. Tarnopolsky whose credentials are accepted by this House as well as across the country. This is a process which resembles the mechanism the provinces have followed and I commend it to the House, and this can only done by defeating this amendment.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I obviously shall not comment on what the minister has just said, but that basically was my question. My question is in two parts. The minister quoted very interesting Figures of the use made of the appeal procedure under section 28 of the Federal Court Act. But cannot the minister understand that it is the very fact that there has been provincial involvement in the provincial human rights commissions-I think they have them in all the provinces, but the minister would know this better than I-but if there are ten human rights commissions in ten different provinces they would be dealing with human rights as they are recognized in those provinces. And this is why, certainly in the federal human rights commission, there should be that final right of appeal to a judicial process, the Federal Court, so that perhaps we might get some consistency in human rights legislation.
You only have one Immigration Appeal Board. You only have one Income Tax Appeal Board. You only have one Transport Commission. All of the bodies the minister mentioned which have utilized the Federal Court Act have been single administrative bodies. The minister himself admits that the different provinces have set up their own commissions. Does this not suggest that there should be at the end of the road some judicial process from the federal human rights commission to the Federal Court?
The last part of my question is this. Again using the analogy to which the minister referred, does he not see already, with what is going on in the country, the human rights commission in Quebec being overruled by a provision of Bill 1, which says in effect that Bill 1 will have priority over human rights decisions by the human rights commission of Quebec, some need for the right of appeal to a federal court?


Some hon. Member:: Right on!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: That is a long question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It doesn't matter. It is important.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have some difficulty answering the question because I am not sure the hon. member understands the division of jurisdiction in the country. There are ten human rights commissions operating under different provincial statutes. There are different requirements in each of those acts, and in the various provincial laws there are rights of appeal provided, rights which are, generally, limited for the same reason that the rights in this law are limited, that is to say, because we are dealing with a specialized area. It would be totally wrong, incidentally, and an invasion of provincial jurisdictions to suggest, as the question seems to suggest, that there should be some appeal by way of the Federal Court Act from decisions of human rights commissions in the provinces.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I did not suggest that.


Stanley Ronald Basford: These ten provincial commissions are operating within their own jurisdictions under their own laws, many of which are different from Bill C-25 in various respects.
May 31, 1977

Whatever judicial supervision is provided over provincial commissions is provided within the laws of each of the provinces. Provision exists for judicial review of the federal commission provided for under this law and this is properly done by the Federal Court. But a decision of the Federal Court cannot and should not be used as some means of judicially supervising provincial commissions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I did not suggest that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wish to thank the Minister of Justice for indicating he would accept a question. 1 will be brief. 1 ask him, to the best of his ability, having read sections 28 and 18 of the Federal Court Act, if, on a pure question of fact-I do not mean a finding of perverse fact or capricious fact-there is an appeal?
I would ask the minister a second question and he can answer both. Did he not promise in committee when I raised this question that Section 28, which has been subjected to legal scrutiny, would be amended? Knowing the weaknesses of Section 28, will the minister not come clean and say that, under the circumstances, there is no proper, legal or just appeal from this bill?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, with regard to that question, the right of appeal on questions of fact is clearly set out in Section 28(1) of the Federal Court Act. A review may be made if the commission or tribunal bases its decision or order upon an erroneous finding of fact which it made in a perverse or capricious manner, or without regard to the material before it.
There is a whole line of cases dealing with questions of fact and how the Federal Court has exercised its jurisdiction under the section. I might refer the hon. member to Mojica v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, (1977) 1 Federal Court, 458, and to-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Answer the question. Don't read off a bunch of names.


Stanley Ronald Basford: There is a whole line of cases which clearly give the legal interpretation which the Federal Court Act has given to Section 28(1 )(c). I undertook in committee that the Federal Court Act, which I announced quite some time ago, would be subject to review. I did not-I want the hon. member clearly to understand this-undertake to amend Section 28. I said it was part of the review process to review Section 28.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I must say that this bill went ahead at report stage before all the committee reports were published; I checked that very carefully. The Minister of Justice did say in committee, and left no reservation whatever, that Section 28 would be reviewed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is what I have just said.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My other point of privilege is that the Minister of Justice knows, if he knows anything, that every (a), (b) and (c) of Section 28 concerns questions of law. On a question of pure fact there is no appeal from the tribunal. We
Canadian Human Rights
are dealing with human rights and natural justice. We have been good friends over the years, but tonight I am shocked that he would mislead or try to mislead the press and the House as Attorney General and Minister of Justice of this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member for Calgary North that that is not a question of privilege but a dispute over facts.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the procedures which have been chosen by the Attorney General (Mr. Basford) for setting up the human rights commission seem indeed strange and extraordinarily complicated. It would have been far wiser, speaking primarily of the hierarchy for dealing with an appeal, to have either a one-man commission or more than one man, since there is provision for at least five members of the commission and at the most eight. Why go to all the trouble of appointing a tribunal? After all, the province of Ontario has had a great deal more experience in human rights codes. In 1971 it amended its human rights code, which was chapter 318 of the revised statutes of the province of Ontario, to provide specifically under new section 14d( 1) the following;
Any party to a hearing before a board may appeal from the decision or order of the board to the Supreme Court in accordance with the rules of court.
In effect, that is all this amendment is saying.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There should be no tribunal. This is another blessed bureaucracy. According to Section 39, people will be chosen from a panel of prospective members, which will be established and maintained by the governor in council. Mr. Speaker, that is nothing but a panel of fat cats who are going to have the opportunity to be paid a salary to be prescribed by a bylaw of the commission. Why on earth go through the process of a tribunal, if the procedure to the Federal Court is directly from the Immigration Appeal Board, the Tax Review Board, the Canadian Transport Commission or from CRTC? Why have a tribunal set up which is to consist of three on an ad hoc basis from a panel established by the governor in council? Why have a tribunal, and then have to rely upon devious wording in the Federal Court Act at Section 28?
It is a matter of law. We have seen it in many cases, where the federal court has denied its jurisdiction because an appeal purported to be on a matter of fact. In the provincial legislation of the province of Alberta there is parallel right of appeal from the provincial human rights commission to the Supreme Court of that province. In Ontario it is an appeal de novo to a judge of the Supreme Court.
Why have this sort of practice? Why have this complicated procedure where there is some doubt? The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is entitled to his legal opinion as much as the Attorney General of Canada is to his. The hon.

May 31, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
member for Calgary North has been more successful in court than the Attorney General of Canada has been. He has the experience of many years before the courts, which is something the Attorney General has not got.
1 am fully in accord with the spelling of this legislatlion of the right of appeal, not only on law, not only on mixed law and fact, but also on fact alone. One should not have to wait for some federal court which, according to the Minister of Justice, would have before it an application for leave, and that court, basing itself on the circumstances of the case, might say, "Oh, but this is just an appeal as to facts, and there lies no jurisdiction in this court to review it". Just that one potential case would be sufficient to justify this direct and unambiguous amendment, and I would so urge the House to accept it.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, if we are going to accept this proposed legislation in a serious spirit-and I think all of us in this Chamber are committed to the spirit of the legislation-I think we should do our best to see that it is effective legislation. For this reason I must raise and support the argument of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and reject the argument which has been advanced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford).
As I see his point, the Minister of Justice relies upon Section 28 of the Federal Court Act. That section has had difficulty
going in previous court cases, and apparently it is the subject of review as to whether it might be improved by amendment, although the minister has told us that he is not going to guarantee that any amendment will be proposed.
However, given the circumstances, if there is a question about legislation which may not achieve the purpose we want, or legislation which through an amendment, such as the one set out by the hon. member for Calgary North, would at least clearly spell out people's rights, I would say that it would be common sense to pass the amendment. If it adds surplusage to the legislation, at least its intention is in the right direction, and it does set forth something specific which is not otherwise clear at all in the law as it exists in Canada now. For that reason alone I must say that the hon. member for Calgary North has made his case, and the Minister of Justice has let the House down.
Second, I must support the argument of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) that it would be helpful to have consistency within the legal operations of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being 10.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Wednesday, June 1, 1977