1978-05-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and under the urgent and pressing circumstances which appear in the following motion, I would move, if approval is given, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House, as the elected branch of the ultimate and highest tribunal in the country, concerned that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done, and that judicial and bureaucratic officials shall not make improper or unexpected use of laws enacted in parliament, requests that the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General inquire into and report to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on certain facts relating to the case of Peter Treu who, after being under charge and trial for approximately four years under the Official Secrets Act, behind a strict curtain of secrecy, was recently convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and, in particular, the allegation that Treu was commanded not to discuss the case even after conviction and was granted bail on appeal only on the same basis, and that the committee be required to consider the provisions of the Official Secrets Act which permit this kind of Star Chamber proceedings, with a view to recommending suitable changes.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate can be made at this time, pursuant to the Standing Order, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that sections 80(1) and 80(2) of the Post Office Act specifically state that the Postmaster General shall submit annually to the Governor General a report of the Canada Post Office for
the preceding fiscal year, and do this within ten days of the commencement of the next ensuing session of parliament, which action the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) has failed to take for the 1976-77 fiscal year, and because this is the second example of the hon. gentleman's ignoring statutory provisions in the operation of the Post Office since he recently assumed this responsibility, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House orders the Postmaster General to desist from his tactics of operating outside the Post Office Act in order to avoid accountability in parliament for the operations of the Post Office.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move an urgent motion. In view of the revelation in today's Montreal Gazette that Bell Canada has agreed to pay $88 million to Saudi Arabian "business concerns" under the terms of its $1.1 billion contract with Saudi Arabia, and in view of Bell's refusal to explain why this pay-out is necessary or who are the recipients, thereby preventing the CRTC from having complete information in determining the validity of Bell's current application for a rate increase, and also raising the spectre of illegal kickbacks, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House demands that the Minister of Communications instruct the CRTC to investigate and make public the details of this $88 million expenditure.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

Mayl2^l978


REQUEST FOR RESTRICTION ON IMPORTED FOREST PRODUCTS- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43,1 seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of very urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the very serious crisis facing the forest industry in Quebec generally, and more specifically in the northwestern area of the province, because of the decreasing number of market outlets for the products of that major industry, and because of the very alarming unemployment situation in this sector; and in view of the fact that imports of plywood alone have deprived our forest industry of over $100 million in revenues during 1977, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones):
That the House urge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) to examine this situation thoroughly and to impose restrictions on forest product imports which may prejudice the most legitimate interests of our workers.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, and in conformity with Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson):
That the Secretary of State table in this House the government's proposals for the new federal-provincial agreement for bilingualism in education which would come into effect as of April 1, 1979, in order to allow adequate time for proper discussion and to remove the anxieties caused by the minister's statement in January of this year that, at that time, it would not be useful or appropriate to discuss them.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

*
* *



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns the fact that as of this moment over one million Canadians are unrepresented in this House. In view of the fact that the patronage and arbitrary appointments of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) are responsible for two-thirds of this regrettable situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House deplores the fact that the government would allow nearly one-tenth of the Canadian electorate to be unrepresented and, while sympathizing with Liberal candidates such as Dr. John Evans who will have to lose the same seat twice in a matter of months, nevertheless demands that the Prime Minister now set a date for the seven by-elections that he has so far lacked the fortitude to call.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?



CONSTRUCTION OF PENITENTIARY IN SELKIRK, MAN.-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that there is high unemployment in the construction industry in Manitoba, and in light of the government's decision to proceed in 1980 with the new maximum security penitentiary for Manitoba to be located in Selkirk, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Public Works or, for that matter, the Solicitor General, immediately proceed with the construction of the penitentiary in order to maximize the economic benefits for both Selkirk and the province, to create employment and to fulfil his promise to the town of Selkirk.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
(Mr. Speaker.]
May 12, 1978



TRANSPORT


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the unemployment situation and the construction industry is at a low ebb in many parts of Canada, particularly in the maritime region; and whereas the federal government has assisted downtown development in many Canadian cities, such as Montreal, Halifax, and so on; and whereas the Department of Public Works and/or the Department of Transport prepared plans, called for proposals and tenders, and proposals and tenders were submitted for the establishment of new regional offices for the Department of Transport in downtown Moncton; and whereas, for some unknown reason, the proposals or tenders were not accepted and construction not undertaken; and whereas, downtown Moncton is in need of a catalyst to revitalize the downtown area and assist in the employment situation, particularly in the construction field, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works take steps forthwith to proceed with the establishment and construction of new regional offices for the Department of Transport in downtown Moncton, New Brunswick, for the reasons outlined above.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House? Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, in announcing his disinclination to meet the electorate, the Prime Minister indicated that the government would be bringing forward other types of economic measures. He declined to give a date when the House of Commons might receive the Bank Act, which we know is ready, and legislation on small business which the government has been promising for some time.
Can the Prime Minister now tell us the general nature and the subject matter of the new economic initiatives the government is planning to introduce? For example, will there be new job creation measures, productivity incentives, new cuts in government spending, and tax incentives for regional development? Will the Prime Minister tell us the kind of measures
Oral Questions
which will be included in this economic package that he has delayed an election to introduce?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this seems like a repetition of the Leader of the Opposition's question of yesterday. We gave him the answer that these matters would be introduced before the House very soon.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the reason the questions are repeated is the failure to answer being repeated day after day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If the Prime Minister expects people to believe his reason for retreating from the election, he will have to spell out precisely the kind of measures he wants to bring before the House. That is what I am asking him today.
Let me try something else on the Prime Minister. He has been proposing for some time, at least as far back as 1975, that his government is going to proceed on a major program of government deregulation. He repeated the promise when he met with the first ministers. Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking now that he or a responsible minister will make a full statement on motions on Monday outlining the extent of the progress of the government toward deregulation?
[DOT] din)
If they have done nothing in this field either, will he give us an undertaking now that he will refer that question to a standing committee of the House of Commons so that parliament can get to work on deregulation even if government will not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take that as a representation, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for it.


ESTIMATES
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think there is an acting prime minister somewhere. I wonder if the government House leader could be enticed back to his seat for a question. 1 ask the acting prime minister-well, they are both acting prime ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As the government House leader will know, one consequence of the dithering, the delaying and the inability of the Prime Minister to make up his mind is that Liberal chairmen of committees have been delaying discussion and consideration of estimates by the House of Commons during the last few weeks.


An hon. Member:: That is not so.
5362

May 12, 1978
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: For example, there has been no consideration of the estimates of the Post Office, Air Canada, Public Works, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the National Energy Board. We are only beginning to make progress on consideration of the estimates of other departments. In light of this delay as a result of the indecision of the Prime Minister, will the government House leader agree to seek the unanimous consent of the House, which he will receive from this side, to extend by two weeks the deadline for the consideration of estimates in committees?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have had absolutely no indication that committee chairmen or members of committees have not been doing their work. The responsibility for the operation of the committees is up to committee members. They are not under the direction of the government in this particular case.


Some hon. Members:: No?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If work has not been proceeding in committees, which I have no reason to believe, then it is the responsibility of committee members as a whole to accelerate the work. I am satisfied that before the end of June, or June 22 which would be the end of the normal supply period, there will be plenty of time to consider the estimates in a thorough and businesslike manner. There will be absolutely no need to extend the period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it amazes me that even this minister can be so out of touch with what is happening in committees of the House of Commons. If he had been paying attention to parliament instead of trying to read the entrails of Mr. Goldfarb over the last several weeks, he would know that very little has been done in the House of Commons because of the deliberate refusal of Liberal chairmen of committees to proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I repeat my question to the government House leader. Will he seek the unanimous consent of the House, which we on this side will give, to extend by two weeks the capacity of standing committees of the House to consider the estimates of departments?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have stated already that I do not accept the allegation made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. It is passing strange to me, at a time when the House itself was accelerating legislation, at a time when we succeeded in passing a good many bills and at a time when the House was very productive, that the Leader of the Opposition should allege that committees have ground to a halt.
I think there is a very obvious contradiction in his argumentation. Even admitting, for the sake of argument, that there
(Mr. Clark.]
might have been some uncertainty in the minds of committee members as to what might happen, there is still plenty of time before the end of the supply period for the committees to do their work.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: May 31.


Gerald William Baldwin: Not June.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hon. members have failed to recall the suggestion made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton when he suggested that the last supply day for this period would be June 22. We cannot have final supply until that day. It is my expectation that we have until June 22 to complete the supply period. If some arrangement is required to continue consideration to June 22, it will be quite all right with me- but certainly not beyond that date.


FINANCE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance who just left the House-a Minister of Finance, by the way, who will probably have the unique distinction of being the only minister in our history who had to bring down three budgets in one session.
In view of the fact that the only economic stimulus in the budget of the minister is the reduction in sales tax, and this expires along with the FLIP program in October, and in view of the serious impact this will have on the economy and on unemployment-which is expected, under normal circumstances, to rise at that time of year-now that we will be around for a while will the Prime Minister indicate if the government intends to bring in a measure either to extend the provision in respect of sales tax beyond the six-month period or bring in new economic stimuli to replace it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is experienced enough to know that we would not answer a question relating to tax cuts or alterations six months in advance. If there is need for a further budget in six months, in eight months or in ten months, we will have a further budget then.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, under normal circumstances the House would adjourn at the end of June and we probably would not come back until after these budgetary measures have expired. I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends, in the interim, to at least arrange a federal-provincial meeting to deal with serious problems in respect of the economy, and especially of unemployment which will be considerably aggravated by the expiration of these budgetary measures.
Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether it is the intention to meet with ministers of finance, because we
May 12, 1978

have a situation in which employment is down and is going down in a number of important sectors, including construction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are within weeks of a budget which was passed by this House-a budget that is already having the beneficial effects on the economy that are quite obvious.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, the best evidence of that is the negative evidence in that we have not had any questions from the opposition in recent days about the state of the dollar; they have not asked any questions about our successful export drive. The budget is having its effect. Of course, several times in the course of a year it is important for the provinces to be consulting with the federal government.
The hon. member is asking about a specific meeting. The hon. member will recall that I suggested one in my letter to the premiers following the February conference: there is discussion going on now as to when such a meeting would be appropriate.


PROPOSED INCREASE IN PRICE OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? Press reports of Wednesday quote him as saying he intends to urge OPEC to forgo any increase in prices this year. I am sure members in all parts of the House wish him well in his endeavours in that regard.
I would ask the minister if it does not seem somewhat contradictory, therefore, for the Canadian government to proceed with the idea on July 1 of increasing the price of oil by $1 per barrel and the price of gas by 17 cents per thousand cubic feet, which will add about $500 million to the fuel bill of the Canadian people in a 12-month period?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware of the government's policy to cushion Canadians against high international prices. We have been able to hold the Canadian price below the international price and we have been able to hold the Canadian price below the United States price, so that we have been able to provide Canadian industry with a competitive edge it would not otherwise have had.
The hon. member is also aware that we have reached an agreement with the province of Alberta, an agreement which was endorsed by a majority of the consuming provinces of Canada, in respect of moving the Canadian oil price up in an orderly and graduated way but in a way which would maintain the competitive position of Canadian industry.
Oral Questions
I am sure the hon. member is also aware that the Canadian government, through the oil import compensation fund, has been providing very large sums of money to subsidize consumers in eastern Canada. Since that program was first put into place, it has worked out to something like $820 per capita in some provinces. The bill is very close to $1 billion a year in oil import compensation payments. The federal government's position has been to move up slowly and only to move up in a way which will provide a balance between the interests of Canadian consumers and producers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister omitted to mention that the government has collected, in taxes for compensation in the last five years, approximately $1 billion more than it has paid out in compensation. Last year the major oil companies of this country were inserting one-page ads in periodicals and newspapers warning the Canadian people they would freeze in the dark if we did not get the Mackenzie pipeline. They are now telling us that we have a surplus of oil and gas, and they are urging the Canadian government to allow these commodities to be exported to the United States.
I ask the minister, since he is a supporter of the principle of free enterprise and the law of supply and demand, if in fact there is a surplus of supply over demand, should the price of gas and oil not come down, rather than going up on July 1 ?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about what I believe is described in many circles as a delivera-bility bubble or a temporary surplus; he is not talking about any long-term surplus, so far as I know, inasmuch as Canadian gas supplies are concerned. For that reason, I cannot see that there should be any change in pricing policy at the present time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it is the government's oil policy that is the bubble, and it is being pricked every day by the events that are transpiring. Can the minister tell the House whether he is aware of studies done in his department and also by the government of Ontario which show that an increase of $1 per barrel for oil at the wellhead, and 17 cents per thousand cubic feet in the price of gas, will add approximately one percentage point to the consumer price index and will result in a loss of 30,000 jobs across Canada? Will he not make representations to his colleagues to combat both inflation and unemployment at the same time by forgoing the proposed price increase in oil and gas on July 1?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have already made clear to the hon. member that the Canadian government's policy has been to hold the price below the comparable price in the United States so that there would be in fact an edge, or a competitive advantage, for Canadian manufacturing industry and for Canadian industry in general. The result of that policy has been that many more Canadians have been employed than otherwise would have occurred.
80038-49%

May 12, 1978
Oral Questions ESTIMATES


STUDY BY HOUSE COMMITTEES
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader arising from his exchange with the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the study of main estimates by the committees. I do not think that my hon. friend intended to mislead the House, but he must be aware of the Standing Order of the House which provides, in terms of committees dealing with estimates:
Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House not later than May 31 in the then current fiscal year.
The date referred to the Leader of the Opposition is a date after which the committees' consideration of estimates has finished. The government House leader has indicated that he has no objection to June 22, but we will need a House order to allow the committees to deal with estimates up to June 22 of this year. Will the government House leader put such an order to the House, on the understanding that we are prepared to deal with that matter immediately?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's reference to the rule. When I replied to the Leader of the Opposition about the period for estimates, I had in mind the period of about June 22 when we would deal with final supply, or allotted day. It was not my intention that we would go beyond that particular period, namely, to June 22.
[DOT] (U32)
If we agree that this shall be the final allotted day, I have no objection, if it is the desire of the House, to go into June for consideration of the estimates, but not beyond that date as has been suggested by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to considering, with my colleagues, the House order that would follow from that. May I deal with another aspect of the estimates, that is, the estimates of the Chief Electoral Officer. The costs of his office and the returning offices in ridings across the country may very well be increased as a result of gearing-up for the election upon which the Prime Minister has turned his back.
Is the government giving consideration to bringing in supplementary estimates to deal with that particular matter, as well as supplementary estimates with respect to government spending, beyond those contained in the main estimates?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On the second point, Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member would have to address his question to the President of the Treasury Board; but I will draw it to his attention. On the first point, with respect to possible additional requirements by the Chief Electoral Officer, up to the present he has not submitted any request for additional funds. When these are required, the normal course is that he submits them to me for presentation to Treasury Board, and that has not been done.
If I may revert to an earlier question, with the indulgence of the House, may I say it would be in the interests of all of us, prior to the provision of a House order to extend the period for study of the estimates, to consider ways in which the committee system could work more effectively as well as over a greater period of time.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader knows that the opposition has been calling since 1969 for a more effective working of the committee system. There are a number of other things that my hon. friend knows could be changed.


ELECTIONS
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a final question for the Prime Minister arising out of questions asked yesterday about by-elections. The Prime Minister indicated he was going to follow the law. Has he, or any official on his behalf or on behalf of the government, consulted the Chief Electoral Officer about the problem that has been created with respect to by-elections: the fact that 1,300,000 Canadians are unrepresented, and the electoral problems dealing with boundaries?
Are these matters being pursued by the Prime Minister, and has he made any decision on them? Also, has he made up his mind about the dates for the balance of the by-elections which have not been called?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that consultations have begun with the Chief Electoral Officer.


COMBINES
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the decision of the United States department of justice to file a misdemeanour charge against Gulf Oil Canada Limited alleging that the company conspired with other uranium producers between February, 1972, and December, 1974, to fix the price of uranium oxide, and noting that the company has stated they became involved only as a result of Canadian government direction, I ask the minister if he agrees with that statement.
Secondly, has the United States Department of Justice requested the co-operation of the Government of Canada, and does the minister intend to co-operate with them if that is requested?

May 12, 1978


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the case involves a number of things. It is largely, however, an information filed against a United States corporation. The Canadian subsidiary is not a defendant. We have made representations, which appear to have been observed, to the extent that if the defendant or any co-conspirator was acting in accordance with Canadian policy, they should not be involved in the lawsuit.


William James Kempling: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House if the government intends to supply information to the United States department of justice if requested to do so and, particularly, will the findings of the director of combines investigations be made available to the U.S. department of justice when they are complete?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to supply any information that would be contrary to the uranium information regulations.


Charles Joseph Clark: 
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications.
As the CBC has decided not to extend its accelerated radio and television coverage program to communities where, since the 1971 and 1976 censuses, fewer than 500 persons speak a given mother tongue, that is the required minimum under the program to benefit from accelerated coverage, and seeing the very absence of those radio and television services is a significant cause of assimilation, could the minister and her cabinet colleagues convince the CBC to reverse this iniquitous decision and stem the appalling tide of assimilation in those communities and remind the CBC that part of its mandate is specifically to protect the minorities?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, of course the CBC's expansion program is the responsibility of my colleague the Secretary of State. But there is still hope that the CBC may be able to ensure its services to communities with a population of less than 500. Through the Department of Communications developments in satellite technology, it may be possible to give the service at a relatively low cost to those communities, thanks to technical means now being studied and developed. So, within a few years, perhaps three or four, and at a relatively low cost, all communities may be served throughout the remote areas of Canada, even if their population ranges between as few as 50 and 200 persons. Even now it is possible to bring the service in the far north to scattered and sparsely populated groups. That is the type of
Oral Questions
research and development being performed in the Department of Communications, which at some point down the road can be integrated into the CBC development program.


POST OFFICE
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General, but in his absence I would direct it to the President of Privy Council. Could the hon. gentleman inform the House why the Post Office report for the fiscal year 1976-77 has not been tabled, as is ordered in section 80(1 )(2) of the Post Office Act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why it has not been tabled, but I will make inquiries.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think this question also lies within the competence and knowledge of the President of Privy Council. Can he tell the House if the delay in tabling the report is designed to avoid its referral to the estimates committee for detailed study, which will be embarrassing to the government because of its clear revelation of government administrative incompetence?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. I am sure scrutiny of the annual report would dispel some of the erroneous views the hon. member has formed.


ELECTIONS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. An unofficial general election has been going on for some months, some 600 candidates have been nominated by the various parties, and the Prime Minister says he is concerned about the laws of Canada being followed. Would the Prime Minister consider having discussions with the Chief Electoral Officer in order that a clear statement could be made by the Chief Electoral Officer as to what proportion of expenses incurred before the writs are issued, whenever they are drawn, will be part of election expenses, so that candidates who are nominated in the traditional fashion do not find themselves in moral breach of the new elections act?

May 12, 1978
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly draw this question to the attention of the Chief Electoral Officer. I do not think he will want to judge morality, but he will be interested in the law itself. It seems to me that in this area the law will give us fairly clear guidance.


PIPELINES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the government House leader. Some time ago I asked the government House leader about the representations made by the province of British Columbia regarding maintenance of the rail lines south from Fort Nelson. That matter, of course, was directly related to the pipeline treaty.
Can the government House leader now advise whether there will be any federal assistance forthcoming to the province of British Columbia other than that contained within the treaty, as a result of those representations? Or can he advise the House that the treaty will speak for itself as far as that province is concerned and they will have to find their own funds for extension of the rail?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I had a meeting some time ago with two ministers of the government of British Columbia. They made a series of proposals with respect to what would constitute an agreement between the Government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. The proposals have been under study in the meantime and I hope they will be considered by the Government of Canada relatively soon. Only at that time will it be possible to answer the general question as to whether there will be assistance, and what form of assistance might be forthcoming. That question has not yet been decided but it is under urgent consideration at the present time.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, could the government House leader advise as to the position of British Columbia with regard to the treaty itself? Is there a legal commitment from the province of British Columbia to proceed with the Alaska pipeline and to be committed to the terms of the treaty, or is that matter still under debate or negotiation? Can he advise whether, in fact, the terms under which British Columbia will participate have been settled, or is that still a matter that is open and, therefore, as far as we know there is no way we can proceed with the treaty until British Columbia has made a commitment to proceed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no, the treaty itself is not in question. With respect to this particular pipeline, we have undertaken to follow the principle of non-discrimination, particularly with respect to taxation, so that no province will tax this specific pipeline in a way different from the taxation of similar pipelines. That is the obligation that Canada has made with the United States through the transit pipeline treaty. In concluding the treaty on the pipeline with the United States, it seemed appropriate to secure assurances from the provinces that they would live up to the terms of the treaty in taxation matters.
As my hon. friend knows, the province of British Columbia said, "Yes, we will observe that particular principle of non-discrimination, but we would like you to meet some of the conditions that we set forward in communications made last August." It is this particular point which is still under discussion with the province of British Columbia. But the Government of Canada has a clear obligation to the United States to ensure within its power that the taxation systems will be non-discriminatory.


SMALL BUSINESS
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Business. In view of the fact that his predecessor was unable to define "small business" as it relates to the small business portfolio, and because that ministry has done very little else since its inception other than initiate studies in order to study other studies on top of studies, could the minister advise this House whether all these studies have enabled him to define "small business" in order for him to realize which sector of the economy needs assistance? In other words, can he tell us the definition of "small business" as it relates to his portfolio?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. member's pursuit of the reactionary cause closest to his heart has prevented his looking at many of the things that have been done by way of taxation, the Small Businesses Loans Act and a good many other things for small business. And more will be done. In answering the hon. member's question I would point out that on many occasions he has heard the definition we have prescribed. Essentially, it is that a small business is defined as a business with fewer than 100 employees and which, in general terms, is legally and financially independent of a larger corporation.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has finally come up with a definition, although it is a fuzzy one. My supplementary question is this: On April 11 the minister told this House that he was pleased with his government's budget
May 12, 1978

in respect of small business. Yet a just concluded survey indicates that 78.1 per cent of the small businesses questioned are not at all content with the budget nor the government's handling of that sector.
In view of the serious need for more incentive opportunities and less government interference, could the minister now assure this House that an over-all, comprehensive, incentive-oriented small business program will be implemented prior to the summer break?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I differ from the hon. member when he suggests that my definition is fuzzy. I would say his hearing is fuzzy. It is as precise a definition as one could expect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I would question this so-called survey of his and its origins, and if he conducted it I would cast very serious doubt on it indeed. I would say I do not disagree with the hon. member that there are things that need to be done for small business. We have been working extremely hard to prepare programs. I am very hopeful we will soon be able to bring them forward.


CANADA MANPOWER
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In his news release of February 1, 1978, the Minister of Employment and Immigration stated that the CMCs for students would attempt to place 250,000 young Canadians in positions in the private sector.
Since the words "placements" and "positions" have in the past been used to inflate and misrepresent the number of real jobs created, in that a student may be placed for three days, four days, a week or maybe one day, and some students are placed seven or eight times for short periods of work, showing seven or eight placements, will the minister revise his reporting methods and report the number of man-days of work created, so that Canadians will receive a true and accurate picture of the work situation as it relates to Canada's youth?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am much more interested in placing students this summer than I am with fiddling around with management statistics. We will, however, look at the hon. member's representation.
Oral Questions ELECTIONS


MILEAGE ALLOWANCE FOR RURAL ENUMERATORS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the one put to the government House leader by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. In view of the problem that is developing in rural constituencies by no provision for mileage allowance for rural enumerators-this is causing problems for returning officers- is the minister, in the discussions he will be having with the Chief Electoral Officer, prepared to bring this matter to his attention? If not, it will mean that there will be inadequate voters' lists in the rural communities.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Here again, as I recollect, the Chief Electoral Officer establishes a tariff of fees for the compensation of election officials. I am sure he will pay attention to the representations the hon. member has made, and if he brings forward a new schedule of fees we will consider it carefully.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he has yet had an opportunity to meet with the executive council of the National Indian Brotherhood regarding the cutbacks in government funding for the native peoples and, if so, what was the result of that meeting?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we met with the members of the executive council of the NIB six weeks or two months ago. I have also met with the presidents and representatives of the provincial associations and as a result of those representations made to us we have conferred with Treasury Board and there has been approval for a $27 million price and volume increase which will now be allocated in an attempt to deal with the problem the hon. gentleman has outlined.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State

May 12, 1978
Oral Questions
for Small Business. Is the minister aware of the fact that figures released by the government this month indicate that business failures in March of 1978 were at a level of 36.9 per cent higher than in March of last year? If so, can he tell us when he will be introducing legislation designed to give small business a much needed break?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: did see the figures to which the hon. member has referred. I noted them with considerable regret. They bear testimony to the fact that in difficult economic times no sector faces greater difficulties than does the small business sector. As to the second part of the question, I cannot give the hon. member a precise date. I can only say it is my hope we shall be introducing initiatives in the near future.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Last Thursday I asked the minister why he had yet to present to parliament a single piece of legislation since he became Minister of State for Small Business. At that time he told us he did introduce the CALURA amendments. Would he care to correct the information he gave to parliament at that time, and tell us why he has yet to present to parliament a single piece of legislation with his name on it?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I did say I introduced the amendments to CALURA. The statement was, in effect, inaccurate because my situation is within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, so of necessity under the act it is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who introduced this nominally. But I was responsible for it and I therefore took some credit.
However, I do not think the measures which I consider to be important require legislation. For instance, there was the change in the interest rate under the Small Businesses Loans Act which was made, quite properly, by regulation. There was the publication of our statistical book on small business, and the development of a variety of other procedures including the important task of advocacy before my colleague, for example, the Minister of Finance. These are not things which could be the subject of legislation introduced by me, but they are nevertheless important. I may add, however, that I share the hon. member's conviction that despite the real improvement we have made in taxation arrangements and a number of other areas, more needs to be done. I am hopeful that at an early date we shall be able to introduce positive new initiatives which will be helpful to this important sector.


TRANSPORT
Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it now the policy of the government to cause plans to be prepared and tenders to be

submitted, and then fail to proceed, as was done in the case of the establishment of the regional office of the Department of Transport in downtown Moncton?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can inquire. I am not aware of the latest plans with regard to this building.


COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF ESTIMATES
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, the hon. member for LaSalle. Given the fact that the transport committee has not met for the last two weeks, and that there are only two weeks or so left before the estimates have to be reported, given the fact that there has not been a single transportation item considered by the committee and that there are urgent and pressing matters concerning transportation which ought to be discussed, including the implications of the Hall report, the congestion at Vancouver and the subject of air safety, may I ask whether the hon. member is considering calling the standing committee together? As a minimum step, is he prepared to call a meeting of the steering committee so that we can discuss the prospect of considering the estimates of the Department of Transport totalling $1.5 billion?


Mr. John Campbell (LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul):: There have been plans to hold a meeting of the steering committee next week to set up a schedule for the consideration of the main estimates and any legislation the government may wish to put forward.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The minister is no doubt aware of the problem created for the town of Chateauguay by the storm drainage system flowing towards the Caughnawaga Indian reserve. In view of the fact that this puts the town in a very embarrassing situation because of the work that is required, has the minister recently met with the town council on this matter, and if so can he tell the House what decision his department intends to take in reply to the request put by the Chateauguay town council?


James Hugh Faulkner: This matter was drawn to my attention by the hon. member for Laprairie several months ago and-
May 12, 1978


Charles Joseph Clark: Nothing happened.


James Hugh Faulkner: Wait a minute. We have since held discussions with the municipal officials concerned. The reason there has not been a complete resolution of the problem is that there are differences in our points of view as to where responsibility lies, and until we can agree on who is responsible for what, I do not think we can reach a solution.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, as the work already done represents an amount of $900,000, and as the municipal council should spend $1,600,000, which of course it cannot pay, and in view of the recommendations made by the member for that riding, can the minister assure the town council that a decision is forthcoming? Is he also willing to financially back the town which cannot be responsible for all the work to be done, which indeed is the responsibility of a reserve under the authority of the federal government? In other words, will the minister take his responsibilities to help this municipality?


James Hugh Faulkner: I think the hon. member should understand that a decision has been taken and that the municipality is unhappy with that decision. There has been some discussion between the department and the municipality as to the reason for the decision. It relates to the division of responsibility for the construction which has taken place. Until there is agreement as to who is responsible for what, it will be difficult to allocate the costs. I cannot, therefore, give the hon. member the assurance he is seeking.


GRANT TO SASKATCHEWAN INDIAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: it concerns the Saskatchewan Indian Community College, Saskatoon, whose funding needs for 1978-79 are projected as $3.3 million. I am informed the college is getting only $439,000 which means, according to one of the officials of the minister's own department, that the college may have to close. Since the minister announced today that more will be available through his department, will he provide the amount necessary to enable this college to remain open?


James Hugh Faulkner: It is not our view that the college will close. I think I should point out to the hon. member that last year we made a contribution to the college of roughly $430,000. We plan to make roughly the same contribution this year. The FSI is arguing for $3.3 million, so there are some differences between their figures and our figures, but there is no reason to believe that we would have jumped from a subvention of $430,000 last year to $3.3 million this year. There is no reason to believe, based on the evidence I have to date, that a continued contribution similar to that of last year would lead
Introduction of Bills
to the closing of the college. I also point out that Canada Manpower is making a contribution to the college of roughly a half million dollars.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-54, to provide a maritime code for Canada and to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other acts in consequence thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there to be discussion about leave being sought either now or at a later time to deal with this bill at second reading later this day?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was told that there had been some discussions about which I did not know, but I was involved in a discussion this morning, and we would be prepared for this bill to be called for second reading later this day. We would ask that any further stages be left until we see what develops.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I was engaged in a conversation about another bill which was in the order of business given yesterday. Would Your Honour please tell me the number of the bill to which you are referring?


Mr. Speaker:: The bill just introduced for first reading dealing with a maritime code. Unanimous consent may be sought either now or later, and it is obviously being sought now for the matter to be taken up for second reading later this day, and that subsequent stages would follow in their normal course.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions, and that is agreeable. Perhaps later today we can discuss together when and how.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to consent to that item unless I see what is being talked about.
80038-SO

May 12, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Unanimous consent is not being sought at this time. There simply has been an indication that some time later in the day consent may be sought to proceed in that way.


SOCIAL SERVICES FINANCING ACT
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-55, to provide for the making of contributions by Canada toward the costs of the provision, development, extension and improvement of social services throughout Canada and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan and repeal the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act in consequence thereof, and to create a Rehabilitation Fund.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,102, 1,231, 1,333, 1,365, 1,378, 1,429 and 1,438.


Mr. Howie: Did the Department of National Health and Welfare begin its study on mercury poisoning in Canada and, if so, what will be the cost of such study and, how many persons will it employ?


Monique Bégin: The medical services branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare has, since 1971, been carrying out a program of investigation surveillance and education in areas of the country, such as northwest Ontario and northwest Quebec, known to be affected by mercury contamination of the environment. In 1976, this program was expanded to include investigations on Indian reserves in all the provinces and in all communities in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. To date, the program has involved some 24,000 tests in over 200 communities. The results of these tests are released regularly by the department. These tests are performed as part of the ongoing contaminants program of the medical services branch and mostly by employees of the branch as part of their regular duties. In certain specific areas, such as northwest Ontario and northwest Quebec, additional nursing staff and local health workers have been hired. On February 27, 1978
an agreement amongst the federal government, the department of social affairs of Quebec, the Donner Canadian Foundation and McGill University, was signed in Montreal. This provides for the carrying out by McGill University, of detailed epidemiological study on the health effects of methylmercury in northwest Quebec. The study is being funded equally by the federal and provincial governments and the Donner Canadian Foundation. Each of these parties has committed $125,000 for a total of $375,000 over a two year period. McGill University will be utilising the services of a number of its faculty during the course of the study. There will also be some short term employment of individuals in Montreal and in the communities being studied. These arrangements are being under the terms of the contract by McGill University. Information already collected by the medical services branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare is being used as a basis for this study.


Mr. Reid: 1.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare begin publishing "Facts and Feelings Filmstrips Series 295C 0176 002 Family Life, Values, Education, Social Studies, Physical Education and Health" and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what reason (c) how many copies were produced, in each case (d) were requests received from Provincial Departments of Education for this type of material?
2.	Did the Department consult with provincial departments of education during the (a) development of the ideas for the series (b) production of the series (c) distribution of the series and, if so, with which ones?
3.	(a) What was the total cost of the project (b) what was the cost of each of the filmstrip series (c) what was the price charged to the Department for the production of each of the series of filmstrips (d) was there any subsidy provided by the National Film Board in the production of the series in that it did not recover all costs associated with the production?
4.	Did the Department distribute the filmstrips (a) throughout Canada (b) outside Canada and, if so, in each case (i) in what way (ii) through what agencies?
5.	(a) How many filmstrips have been purchased by school boards in each province and in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon (b) how many were given to boards of education by the Department?
6.	Did the Department seek the permission or consult with provincial departments of education before promoting the filmstrips series to local boards of education?


Hon.   Monique@: 1. Health and Welfare Canada has acted as sponsor to the National Film Board in the production of a multi-media kit, of which one series is entitled "Facts and Feelings", (a) The series has been available from National Film Board distributors since December, 1976. (b) The series was intended to provide an audio-visual resource in sex education, (c) As of January, 1978, the following number of copies have been produced: "Facts and Feelings": 129, "Savoir ... Sentir": 83, "A Question of Values": 128, "Points de Vue": 49, "Living and Growing": 130, "La Vie Qui Pousse": 88. (d) Yes.
2. (a) Yes. (b) Consultation on such joint projects production, is carried out by the National Film Board. The board has a practice of inviting representatives of ministries of education to preview semi-finished materials. This procedure was in effect at this time, (c) Officials (designated for purposes of

May 12, 1978

federal-provincial liaison on family planning matters) in departments of health and/or welfare in all of the provinces and territories were consulted in reference to the distribution of the series. This is in keeping with established departmental policy.
3.	(a) $206,188. (b) "A Question of Values", "Points de Vue": $114,568. "Facts and Feelings", "Savoir... Sentir", "Living and Growing", "La Vie Qui Pousse": $91,620. (c) "A Question of Values", "Points de Vue": $72,536. "Facts and Feelings", "Savoir... Sentir", "Living and Growing", "La Vie Qui Pousse": $45,000. (d) It is our understanding that costs are recovered through sales. The National Film Board advises us that no subsidies are involved in these projects.
4.	(a) The distribution of the filmstrip is the responsibility of the National Film Board. The department provided copies to the two national voluntary agencies, namely, "Planned Parenthood Federation" and "Serena" (La Societe pour la regulation des naissances) and to each province and territory, in the latter case via officials in departments of health and/or welfare designated for purposes of federal-provincial liaison on matters relating to family planning and sex education, (b) No.
5.	(a) The National Film Board states that total sales to January, 1978 are: "Facts and Feelings": 115, "Savoir... Sentir": 55, "A Question of Values": 116, "Points de Vue": 49, "Living and Growing": 115, "La Vie Qui Pousse": 68. (b) None.
6.	(a) The Department has not undertaken any promotional activities with local boards of education.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	What will be the total cost involved, in terms of manpower and office rental, leases, expenses, etc., with reference to the proposed Cambrian Family Planning Centre which has been proposed for Sudbury and district?
2.	What services are to be provided by the Cambrian Family Planning Centre and how will they differ from existing services currently being provided by other agencies within that community?


Monique Bégin: 1 and 2. A grant of $179,000 for the Cambrian Family Planning Centre has been requested. The proposal was appraised by federal, provincial and regional authorities, who took into account the existing services and service requirements in the Sudbury area. Major revisions have also been suggested, and discussions are currently underway between health unit officials and the applicants to ensure that any grant request from Sudbury meets the needs of the area. Because of these continuing discussions further information is not available at this time.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	During the 1976-77 fiscal year, did the government contribute to provincial welfare schemes and, if so (a) what were the programmes (b) what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount for each province?
2.	What is the percentage of the government's contribution to such programmes?


Monique Bégin: 1. Yes. (a)(i) Blind Persons Allowances; (ii) Disabled Persons Allowances; (iii) Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons; (iv) Young Offenders; (v) Nursing Home Care Benefits; (vi) Canada Assistance Plan-Part I and Part III; (vii) Unemployment Assistance. (b)(i) Total amount contributed in 1976/77 was $1,706,159.
Amount per province	Total 1976/77 ($000's)
Newfoundland	40,841
Prince Edward Island	10,812
Nova Scotia	48,376
New Brunswick	69,009
Quebec	614,830*
Ontario	475,467
Manitoba	68,624
Saskatchewan	65,732
Alberta	121,891
British Columbia	185,376
Northwest Territories	4,294
Yukon Territory	907 $1,706,159
2. Through the program listed in 1(a) the federal government cost shares 50 per cent of the shareable costs incurred by the provinces in carrying out these programs. However, provision is made for the federal government to reimburse 75 per cent of the amounts paid by each province through Blind Persons Allowances.
* Since part of the Quebec provincial welfare scheme is financed through the interim arrangements act, both the cash contribution and the tax point amounts are included in this above figure.


Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska): May 12, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Fiscal Year	National Total	NFLD.	PEL	N.S.	N.B.	QUE.1971-72	2,205,355	47,183	17,204	97,117	73,208	543,7511972-73	2,524,345	54,475	19,663	110,681	84,002	628,0291973-74	3,034,492	64,209	23,123	131,450	99,554	756,0271974-75	3,444,474	73,067	25,936	148,330	112,865	863,9141975-76	3,933,976	85,237	29,480	170,198	128,767	1,000,4331976-77	4,436,673	98,063	32,793	191,973	147,373	1,134,1781977-78*	4,438,084	98,565	32,600	190,870	146,793	1,137,587(to date) TOTAL	29,196,478	629,162	221,890	1,268,933	965,032	7,308,326ONT.	MAN.	SASK.	ALTA.	B.C.	N.W.T.	Y.T.775,910	123,494	121,949	150,831	252,708	1,304	696881,391	141,268	138,945	173,835	289,738	1,527	7911,063,979	168,243	164,196	209,049	351,927	1,803	9321,206,760	189,251	183,064	236,839	401,319	2,089	1,0401,369,293	214,191	205,450	269,883	457,388	2,457	1,1991,535,638	239,904	229,525	306,133	516,720	2,975	1,3981,539,485	238,691	228,068	304,648	516,333	3,015	1,42810,222,236	1,607,894	1,559,069	2,002,275	3,384,680	18,000	8,981
February 28, 1978
Note: Payments are expressed SOOO's


Mr. Neil: For each year since its inception, what have been the amounts spent by the Metric Commission (a) in total (b) on printing and publishing the Metric Monitor paper (c) on newspaper advertising (d) on all other forms of advertising?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: (a) Metric Commission Canada Budget: 71-72, $44,541; 72-73, $530,943; 73-74, $1,590,792; 74-75, $2,634,101; 75-76, $3,316,100; 76-77, $5,175,000; 77-78, $5,532,000. (b) Starting in 1974 contracts for printing and publishing the Metric Monitor, decided by the Department of Supply and Services on a competitive bid system are as follows: October 24, 1974, $35,000; August 15, 1975, $60,000; July 28, 1976, $72,000; August 2, 1977, $67,344; February 16, 1978, $67,344. (c) Metric Commission Canada has a policy for not paying for advertising space and time. On one occasion only, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, office of information and public relations, on behalf of Metric Commission Canada did spend approximately $130,000 in 1975 on the "Say Goodnight Fahrenheit" newspaper advertising campaign, (d) Same as (c) above.


Mr. Allard: 1.	Does the city of Rimouski have an Old Age Security Office and, if so (a) since what date (b) what is its address?
2.	(a) How many persons are employed in the office (b) what are their names
(c)	from what date have they been employed (d) how were they appointed (e) what are their annual salaries?
3.	Were any of these persons (a) formerly employed in the Public Service (b) from the Constituency of Rimouski and, if so, in each case, how many?
4.	How many such offices are in the Province of Quebec?


Hon.   Monique@: 1. Yes. (a) February 3, 1978. (b) Set up temporarily at "70 est, rue St-Germain, piece 101, Rimouski". It will be permanently located at city hall, 204 rue de la Cathedrale as soon as facilities are available.
2. (a) One. (b) Louise Sainterre. (c) January 3, 1978. (d) Lateral transfer from the Quebec regional office, (e) $11,350.-$12,409.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) Yes. One.
4.	In addition to the two existing offices, one in Quebec City and the other in Montreal, there are nine new offices in the process of being established in the province of Quebec. They are located in Longueuil, Sherbrooke, Rimouski, Val d'Or, Sept-Iles, Gatineau, Drummondville, Trois-Rivieres and Chicoutimi.


Yvon Pinard: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday March 13, consideration of Bill C-4, to amend the Aeronautics Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and motion of Mr. Mazankowski (p. 3708).
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak about the amendment to Bill C-4 presented by our transport critic, I would like to say that I strongly subscribe to the intent and the purpose of this amendment. There is a need for careful scrutiny of government regulations. There is no question that in the past, regardless of the form of legislation, the public and certainly members of parliament have shown a great deal of concern in the House and through the media about the nature of amendments, orders in council, regulations and so forth which come before us, or which we find out about after legislation has been approved.

May 12, 1978

One must ask what changes in the regulations or what new regulations will go forward to resolve problems at the community airport level. I am reminded of the circumstances surrounding the Castlegar airport, and I wonder whether regulations will put some form of stricture on that operation. The operation to date has shown signs of federal stricture. Positive decisions have been made by regional authorities, and negative decisions have been made by Ottawa-based authorities. The reverse can also happen.
Recently, after a number of years of operation at that airport, the Ministry of Transport in its benign wisdom decided that the Castlegar airport should have the benefit of a foam truck for the purpose of fighting fires. I think that is very commendable. The difficulty is that in providing a foam truck at the Castlegar airport the department did not realize that, in the freezing temperatures of winter, foam freezes. I have been applying to the Ministry of Transport now for about two years for an expansion of the facilities for the storage of equipment which services the runway. There is no storage facility in which to keep a foam truck. The only other way would be to leave other equipment sitting outside to freeze up during the winter months. I can just imagine the foam truck being called upon for immediate and urgent use in the middle of winter and it being discovered that the foam had frozen in the tanks. That would create all kinds of waves for Ottawa.
Surely in terms of regulations, and considering what will be done at the local level, there must be some form of reporting at the standing committee level, and reporting to this House. This House should have the opportunity to deny, or at least express concern about, the implementation of regulations that have an impact on flying, whether commercial or by private pilots.
Castelgar airport has an excellent record of all who use that facility. This includes the flight crews in commercial transports, private pilots, the ground crew in terms of weather and tower instructions, as well as the directors of the Selkirk College, one of the finest flying schools in Canada with some of the finest students.
On a recent visit to Selkirk College I overheard an inspector from the Ministry of Transport say what a treat it was to examine second year students at the flying school at Selkirk College. He said he did not think there was a student with a mark below 83. He stated that in Vancouver, where there are a number of flying schools, students applying for commercial licences frequently have an average of around 60 per cent, on the border line of failure. They fight with the instructors, inspectors, and examiners to try to get a pass mark. That speaks very well for the quality of students and instructors at Selkirk College.
That kind of dedication is demonstrated by students, instructors, air crew, be they private or commercial, the ground crew and those who operate at Castlegar airport. They have an outstanding record of safety, even though Castlegar airport is considered by many pilots to be one of the most awkward airports in Canada at which to land.
Aeronautics Act
There are no facilities at that airport such as VOR, a type of navigational aid that is very costly and highly sophisticated. This facility would be very useful because of the mountainous terrain and the approaches to the field. We have difficulty with transport regulations and priorities in providing some of the most essential, but in terms of sophistication almost rudimentary, navigational aids for Castlegar airport. The aid that is now there belongs in the Smithsonian Institute. Parts are difficult to obtain. I recognize the problem is supposedly going to be solved before this year is out. Hopefully it will be.
When dealing with regulations one is drawn to the concern that has emanated from the findings of the inquiry into the terrible accident at Cranbrook airport. I can only say that there, but for the grace of God, go I. It is a route I travel practically every week end. I am very disturbed by the reports that have come out in the press as a result of the coroner's inquest in Cranbrook for the past three days. It is very disturbing to hear that the ground operations at Cranbrook Airport were not aware that that ill-fated flight was going to arrive in Cranbrook ten minutes earlier.
Given the right weather conditions and passenger load, it is not unusual, particularly for a jet aircraft, to arrive at its destination five, ten or 15 minutes early. We sometimes benefit from that kind of early arrival. The passengers on that ill-fated flight reaped a different kind of benefit, though it can scarcely be called a benefit. Surely that type of incident is something that can be discussed in depth by concerned members who serve on the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
I believe the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is sensitive to some of these concerns. I believe also that he may be stubborn with regard to others, as is his nature. I really am dumbfounded as to how it can be concluded that it would not be possible for an aircraft to arrive at Cranbrook ten minutes early.
To remark on the other reported causes of the accident would not be appropriate for me or anyone else who lacks the experience, expertise, and knowledge to comment on them properly. They deal with the question of whether there was pilot error, mechanical error, or whatever. Much of that we will probably never know.
The Cranbrook airport has been in operation as a Ministry of Transport airport for a number of years. It enjoys a substantial amount of traffic, both private and commercial. It does not have the benefit of a tower. I might ask why Castlegar got a tower before Cranbrook. However, I would then be open to some concerns by my constituents. I am indeed pleased that a tower was constructed at Castlegar before Cranbrook, possibly because Castlegar is considered a much more difficult airport in terms of approaches. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we have our priorities mixed. There should be much greater emphasis on air traffic control.
It is incongruous that at this very moment in Castlegar the airport is under major reconstruction, with a total rebuilding of the surface. For the expenditure of a few extra dollars, there could be provision for adequate parking rather than having the

May 12, 1978
Aeronautics Act
cars parked every which way, and even out in the field. There should be provision of adequate facilities for the Castlegar airport such as for the reclaiming of baggage, especially in winter. The outdoor baggage pick-up area clearly does not demonstrate good judgment.
In Kelowna, which does not experience anything like the weather conditions at Castlegar, in fact it is positively tropical, there is indoor provision for luggage. The same is true of Cranbrook, but not so in Castlegar. They must work in cramped and confined quarters inside the terminal building, both in terms of service personnel and management as well as the representatives of PWA. The passengers are confined to a very small area. It is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the people.
There are a large number of airports in Canada. Nevertheless, the public questions the mixture of priorities in terms of the Ministry of Transport. The Minister of Transport has a habit of foisting these airport operations on to the communities. He makes it appear like a gift or a fire sale. Frequently it is the communities that end up being burned. The reaction from the communities is, "Take back your airport. We do not want the damn thing. You did not tell us the whole story". Another of the mixed reactions is, "Now that we are operating it for you, you are not prepared to spend a penny. You expect us to do all the work for you".
I am sure every municipality which has an airport is proud of that fact. They take pleasure out of being able to call their airports the City Airport of Cranbrook, the Castlegar City Airport, or the Vancouver International Airport. The communities cannot bear the load respecting airport facilities, equipment, manpower and maintenance, alone. They should not have to; they should not be asked to do that. There should be common ground and understanding before communities walk into situations such as that with their eyes blinded by the Department of Transport. At the other end of the road, there will be a big bill. Not only do local airports have cause for concern. The smaller airport facilities have cause for concern as well.
I am amazed at the Community Airport Facilities Fund. The Minister of Transport can correct me if he wants, but it is my understanding the fund per year allotted for that type of a facility is around $2 million, generally speaking. Also it is my understanding that the call on that money across Canada is in excess of $9 million. Some of these smaller community facilities-call them emergency strips, if you will-are in desperate need of upgrading in order to make them reasonably safe for private aircraft landings. Yet we have a fund of $2 million, with a demand of $9 million annually. It takes a long time for any community to reach the top of the pile. In some instances, communities find that they have been reshuffled and end up at the bottom of the pile.
The community of Kaslo made overtures to the fund for a number of years, with no results. The town of Creston was anxious to put in an airport. That town did not receive

encouragement from the Minister of Transport because it was a community with a tax base which did not allow it to make an initial start. In fact that community requires that boost and that help. As matters now stand, they will not get an airport.
Aside from the provision of facilities, buildings, plants and other structures at airports, a great deal of concern should be directed toward the question of air safety, commercial or private. After the coroner's inquest, it was revealed that there have been other instances across Canada. Apparently there was one at Dorval and, if I am not mistaken, one at North Bay or Thunder Bay. In these instances, commercial flights landed and were impeded on final approach and touchdown by vehicles on the runway such as snow removal equipment, maintenance equipment or whatever.
Surely some kind of policy or regulation to protect us from accidents of that nature is necessary. I am referring to accidents which are caused by conflicting traffic being on the runways at the same time. I think of the horrible accident which occurred in the Canary Islands a couple of years ago. In that accident I lost two good friends from Kelowna when two 747s collided on the runway. I would hate to think a remotely similar accident could occur in Canada.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) has repeatedly expressed his concerns in this House for air safety. He has drawn to the attention of the minister the violations which have occurred repeatedly in the north. I am aware of a number of occasions where aircraft have crashed, resulting in the death of the crew and passengers, because of one simple failure-the failure to adhere to load limits.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Hylton Brisco: The responsibility for load limits rests with the commander or the pilot of the aircraft. Load limit infractions are most dangerous, a real poker game with death. They are occurring repeatedly, most particularly in the north.
I can recall making a flight in a Beaver from Smithers to Buckinghorse Lake. I had the benefit of a good pilot and a good aircraft. He wondered why the aircraft would not maintain the straight and level course which he wanted. After we landed and were unloading supplies, the pilot realized that someone back at the base in Smithers had put a drum of fuel into the back of the aircraft. He did not know it was there. The aircraft was fully loaded with equipment prior to the drum of fuel being loaded. That drum was covered up, and the pilot was not aware of it being there. It was not an easy flight for him, and it was rather uncomfortable for me. I was aware of his concerns because I am a pilot as well, but I am not as skilled as those men who fly in the north. One should not risk death by overloading. The men who fly in the north are asked repeatedly to take a chance by overloading their aircraft.
May 12, 1978

There is a host of areas which can be covered during debate on this bill. I will not attempt to cover all those areas. I thank hon. members for allowing me to continue my remarks after my time had expired. The Minister of Transport bears a tremendous responsibility in the enormous and widespread field of aviation. This responsibility is shared by his officials, who are dedicated and have proven well, but are constrained by government policy. It is difficult to comprehend that government and cabinet regulations would impinge upon the effectiveness of the Department of Transport itself or those who are under its blanket or cover.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity of participating in the report stage of Bill C-4 dealing with the Aeronautics Act, formerly known as Bill C-40. Members of this House are quite aware of the furor this bill caused small aircraft operators because of proposed changes in landing fees and so on. I am happy to say that because of pressures put on by those operators and other concerned groups, as well as by opposition members, we have been able to come up with some improvements to the bill during the committee process.
We now have an amendment to clause 2 which will provide for better consultation between the minister and aircraft owners and operators, and will exempt aircraft that weigh less than 5,700 kilograms from the regulation requiring a deposit of security lien for nonpayment and cases of overdue accounts.
Also during the committee process we amended clause 4 to eliminate the need to license premises used in the design of aircraft, and to provide notice by registered mail to landowners affected by zoning regulations made under the provisions of this bill. Prior to the amendment, any landowner who might be affected because of zoning changes brought in by the federal government was not even to receive the courtesy of getting a notice of that change by registered or first class mail. We managed a definite improvement there.
In addition, clause 7 was withdrawn from the bill. This would have changed licence requirements for non-scheduled air carriers.
I am happy to see that we have an amendment by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) which will permit, if 20 members of this House desire, the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to call witnesses and report to the House concerning the proposed regulation of landing fees and other aspects of the act. We support that amendment because we feel it is important to have on-going consultations with those affected, and we want to see how this act will affect the people in its operation, and have the chance to change or negate any of its detrimental effects.
In the short time remaining to me I should like to zero in on two aspects of the bill which, in a sense, relate to the process of amendment before us and the examination of how the act operates, that is, the effects the bill will have on landowners
Aeronautics Act
because of zoning changes near airports, and the matter of air safety.
An amendment in the bill gives the federal government an opportunity to make zoning regulations in areas adjacent to airports to provide for safety in respect of commercial and private aircraft. We welcome the idea in principle that the federal Department of Transport should have some authority in zoning around airports. However, we are dismayed at the lack of provision and safeguard in the bill in the whole regulatory process to protect existing land owners from any deterimental effects of rezoning. For example, we know there is no avenue of appeal before or after publication of the regulation affecting those who are going to be rezoned. The method of determining compensation to those affected by zoning is, in the opinion of the NDP, quite inadequate. Compensation is provided only to those who are using land in a manner which does not conform to the new regulations, and the act does not compensate for injury caused by airport operations.
I think of a specific case in point which demonstrates this situation, and that is the case of the residents of the Stanley Park area near the federal airport in that community of the city of Thunder Bay. The city made a detailed representation to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, making what I thought were quite logical and proper recommendations in terms of protecting landowners adjacent to airports. They brought out a number of weaknesses in the bill which, unfortunately, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has not seen fit to address himself to by providing proper amendments.
Let me quote from this representation from the city of Thunder Bay as I think it is well worth putting on the record, and I urge the minister to take these recommendations into consideration. The city points out:
Subsection 10 only provides for compensating owners who are put in the position of contravening the zoning regulations because the use exists at the time the regulations become applicable and only on the basis of the decrease in value caused by the application balanced by any increase in value of the property which may come about by the effects of the airport. No provision is made for compensation:
(a)	where damages are attributable to disturbance of occupation or business losses;
(b)	where there are special difficulties in relocation;
(c)	in a special allowance where a residence is taken, including a fixed amount for inconvenience and the cost of finding another residence as well as an allowance for improvements to the land where the value is not reflected in the market value;
(d)	for special costs in replacing the premises;
(e)	for moving costs;
(0 for legal, survey and appraisal costs
The act does not make special provision for compensating tenants or deal separately with mortgages.
Subsection (11) limits the time for claiming compensation within two years from date of registration of the regulation. This provision without the safeguard that the owner has been properly notified would appear to assume that everyone checks his property's title every two years.
Those are the concerns of the city and property owners, and the only advance we have really made is in the area of

May 12, 1978
Aeronautics Act
notification. If there is to be a rezoning, the federal Department of Transport will send a letter to those affected. In terms of those other valid complaints we do not see any improvement. I think that is a glaring inadequacy of this bill, and unless it is overcome by regulation, or perhaps even by proper amendment, I do not see how we can support the bill as it is written. Surely property owners should not be jeopardized by "after the fact" kind of regulations, and if we have a government that believes in fairness and justice there should be a proper method of appeal, and we should have proper compensation procedures for those affected.
The other area of the bill which gives me much concern is that with reference to air safety. It is my conclusion we have a Department of Transport that is woefully negligent in this matter of air safety. I refer to that part of the country with which I am very familiar, northern Ontario, and in particular northwestern Ontario. We have seen one example after another of non-compliance with air safety regulations, nonenforcement of air safety regulations and, indeed, lax regulations in terms of air traffic in that part of the country.
The House and the public would be shocked to know that since 1970 in northern Ontario there have been more than 520 airplane accidents north of a line between Ottawa and Georgian Bay. One hundred and seventy people have died in those accidents. Between January and November, 1976, there were 57 accidents which claimed the lives of 13 people. The transport ministry official estimate states that there were almost an equal number of incidents in the same period caused by such things as fuel caps off, sliding off runways, near collisions in the air, and faulty plane maintenance. Yet the Minister of Transport likes to tell us in the House that we have one of the safest records of any country in terms of air safety.
Statistics in those specific areas indicate that we may have a very safe record when we average it out internationally, but certainly in terms of regions of Canada and the people who have to use that air travel, this is a very sad record indeed. I have called in this House for a public inquiry into the air safety aspect in northern Ontario time and time again. We have seen a department investigation in response to the clamour from the people of the area in light of these many accidents, and it was called the Slaughter and Carswell report. It brought in a devastating report on the state of air safety in northwestern Ontario.
Among many things they found overloading, falsification of log book entries, illegal and unsafe maintenance practices, flying below legal limits in bad weather, flying with insufficient flight instruments, failing to record aircraft defects, failing to train pilots although it is required by law, signing of logs by maintenance engineers without the required work being done, and employers pressuring employees into unsafe and illegal practices.
It also came to light that part of this horrendous state of the air safety situation in northwestern Ontario was that political considerations can supersede the safety of the travelling public. A memo from R. L. Bolduc, director of the ministry's

aeronautical licensing and inspection branch, indicated instances in the past where an aircraft inspector had tried to suspend the licence of an airline operating out of Red Lake, Ontario, for violating safety regulations and was told by his Ottawa superior that suspensions should never be considered until, and I quote:
-you fully consider the possibility of embarrassment to the minister and any other potential political implications-
Does embarrassment to the minister take precedence over enforcing air safety regulations? What an incredible state of affairs that we have in this country when memos such as that are given to inspectors in the field. If that alone does not justify a full public inquiry into the full operations of air traffic in northern Ontario and the whole business of the adequacy of our inspection and regulations, I do not know what does.
Despite that revelation, the number of accidents, the Slaughter and Carswell report, the minister refuses and stonewalls a full public inquiry into that situation. Instead, what the minister does is issue a press release in December of 1977 announcing that a number of recommendations, of the 15 outlined in the Slaughter and Carswell report, are being given serious consideration, and that he is hiring 12 more aviation inspectors. Well, that is commendable and we do not argue with hiring more inspectors, but that surely is not going to get to the root of the problem. It will not clear up the example I mentioned of who is telling whom when air safety regulations are to be applied or not to be applied, and under what circumstances.
Mr. Leo Bernier, the provincial minister of northern affairs, requested an inquiry because there had been 134 crashes between January and October, 1976 in which 32 people died. The Minister of Transport's office confirmed these figures but responded by saying that an inquiry was not necessary because, and I quote:
-experienced aviation specialists have been hired and positioned in our regional offices to monitor and take appropriate action to improve the standards of operation of air carriers in all parts of the country.
We have had these assurances in the past, yet we still have the incredible accident rate in this part of the country. The governament must get to the bottom of this, and the only way that can be done is by an independent inquiry or holding public hearings that will examine such things as the state of radio signals and beacons in the small airports, landing strips throughout the north, mechanical repair facilities in these small communities and, indeed, the operating procedures of the various aircraft companies themselves.
The recent developments in northern Ontario are most disconcerting, and I refer particularly to one company, Patricia Airways. Anyone who has been following the situation will be familiar with the fact that on May 12, 1977, a Patricia Airways DC-3 crashed and the pilot, Dave Belluz, was killed. Three charges were laid against Patricia Airways under the federal Aeronautics Act that were later dropped in February, 1978, because the Crown prosecutor did not arrive in court on time. This is an incredible situation, but since then we have heard that the federal government is not going to proceed with
May 12, 1978

prosecuting Patricia Airways because the company has now declared bankruptcy. What possible relevance does the financial state of a company have in relation to compliance or non-compliance with the Aeronautics Act of Canada? If they have been violating the act, then people must be held responsible and appropriate charges laid. It is hogwash when the federal government uses the excuse of bankruptcy for non-prosecution.
The airline was charged with assigning Mr. Belluz to a plane when he had not passed an efficiency test on that type of aircraft within six months, as is required by law, with operating an aircraft that was not safe and fit, and with operating an aircraft in a sparsely settled area without the required emergency equipment. The inquest found that the plane had been overloaded by 500 pounds to 600 pounds, the logbook was not up to date, the entire history of the plane was sloppy and sporadic. The jury advised that maintenance be improved. It was also learned that sometimes officials concerned with the aircraft had been found intoxicated. Indeed, one of the employees had stated that she had been instructed to keep a logbook out of sight so that it did not fall into the wrong hands.
There is an example of one company which, it would appear, violated section after section of the act and which, it would appear, is responsible in no small way for the death of the pilot, yet we learn there will be no prosecution by the federal government. What an incredible situation, Mr. Speaker. I think it was summed up very well by Mr. Iain Angus, the New Democratic Party candidate in Thunder Bay, who, in a press release stated:
It is bad enough that the federal prosecutor missed the first opportunity to present the Crown's case because he didn't plan for the inadequacy of the air system in the northwest, but to now drop any and all charges against the air carrier whose pilot died in the crash at Pickle Lake, just because the firm is in financial difficulty is an insult to every pilot and every passenger having flown in northwestern Ontario.
The bill before us is inadequate in regard to the whole business of zoning and expropriation. It is a bill that indicates much of the arrogance and authoritarianism of this government and the way it applies policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and 1 thank my colleagues. I shall be brief.
As I was saying, this demonstrates the arrogant heavy handedness of this government when it deals with ordinary individuals and their property rights. More important, the inadequacies of an air safety program accentuate the jeopardy that many people are exposed to just because the government
Aeronautics Act
is not serious about strengthening and upholding safety regulations.
The incidents in northwestern Ontario indicate that the only way we can find out who is responsible for this disastrous situation, and to what degree they are responsible, is to have a full public inquiry. We must not only find out who is responsible but see to it that they are prosecuted. In that way we may be able to introduce regulations to improve the situation so that all those who depend on air services in this country may feel safe.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, for over six years I have been involved in federal politics full time. I remember being nominated in early February, 1972. At that time we were going through a period similar to the one we find ourselves in now. The Canadian people were expecting an election to be called for June or July, 1972; then the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced, as he did yesterday, that there would be an election-free summer.
I had the same experience as many candidates who have been nominated now are having. Some have quit their jobs and are involved full time in running for office, travelling about a constituency talking to people about their concerns and the issues that should face members of parliament.
As I travelled about the constituency and talked to my distinguished predecessor, Mr. Marvin Howe, he said that during his time in parliament-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I should like to suggest to the hon. member that he speak on the terms of Bill C-4.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to do that, and I was just coming to my point. Mr. Howe pointed out to me that the most distressing aspect of his years in government was the continuous use by this government of the odious phrase "the governor in council may make regulations." This relates directly to this bill. On page 2 of Bill C-4 to amend the Aeronautics Act, in clause 3 appears the following statement:
5.2 For the protection of passengers, property and persons on the ground, the governor in council may make regulations requiring the owners and operators of privately registered aircraft to subscribe for and carry liability insurance, and Fixing the minimum amount of such insurance.
The motion which stands on the order paper in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski), applies to this clause. It provides that if a significant number of members of parliament are concerned about the regulations imposed by the governor in council without consultation with parliament, and if 20 of them sign a motion to that effect, a debate could be held on the subject of the regulations imposed by the government and could require that a study be made by the appropriate committee to determine whether such regulations should be allowed to stand. Surely nothing could be more sensible than ensuring that the power of parliament remains intact and that members who are concerned that regulations imposed in the dark of night by cabinet, without consultation with parliament, should be fully and adequately examined.

May 12, 1978
Aeronautics Act
The issue is nothing less than the need to preserve parliamentary sovereignty. No issue is more important to members of parliament than this. To this government the issue of parliamentary sovereignty appears to be an arcane one and parliament is viewed as an impediment, not as a partnership. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, the power of parliament is nothing less than the power of the people of Canada. If the government takes away the ability of parliament to debate, scrutinize, and hold it accountable for its actions, it undermines the ability and power of the people to keep an effective check on democracy and on this government.
During the six years that I have been in parliament there has been a steady undermining of the role of parliament. We have seen this happen in many ways. During question period today there was some discussion about committees, many of which had not met or considered the estimates. It is very possible, if this government insists on this sort of procedure-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest to the hon. member that he get back to the terms of Bill C-4.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The terms of Bill C-4 are explicit, Mr. Speaker. They further undermine the power of members of parliament to keep an eye on what the government is doing. What I am trying to establish is that over the last several years it has taken away the power of parliament to carry out its functions on behalf of the people of Canada. This bill, and the power to govern by regulation, are only one more step in a long process aimed at dismantling the power of parliament and removing the ability to check which is presently held by members of parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, when the House broke for lunch at 1 p.m. we were discussing the amendment placed on the order paper by my hon. friend from Vegreville. It would have the effect of amending Bill C-4 which is before us at the present time on the subject of the Aeronautics Act. The force of the amendment proposed by my hon. friend would be to ensure that when orders in council are made by the governor in council under the terms of this measure, the House of Commons would be able to scrutinize those orders to see that the government had acted properly within the power delegated to it by parliament. The amendment would provide for parliamentary review if 20 members signed a petition requesting it.
[Mr. Bcatty.l
I began earlier by noting that there had been an increasing tendency on the part of government to bypass parliament. What I should like to do this afternoon is to make four points. I think they are fundamental points. They are crucial, I believe, as we try to decide whether or not the amendment in the name of my hon. friend from Vegreville deserves support.
The first point I want to make is that the power of parliament is the power of the people of Canada. We have no rights except those which are drawn from the people. We act in their name upon authority delegated by them, and anything done to undermine the authority of parliament and lessen the power of the people's representatives undermines the power of the people themselves.
The second point I wish to make is that the government's increasing reliance upon the issuance of regulations is, in fact, undermining the authority of parliament. I will return to that point a little later.
The third is that the track record of the government with regard to government by regulation is bad, a dangerous one for the Canadian people.
The fourth and most important, I intend to establish that the amendment proposed by my hon. friend would give at least some protection to parliament and to the people.
I return for a few moments to the second point I made, namely, that the increasing reliance by the government upon governing by regulation is undermining parliament. 1 shall not deal this afternoon with other areas in which the government has been bypassing parliament or eroding its sovereignty by detracting from our ability to place a check upon the arbitrary powers of the cabinet, but it is worth mentioning that increasingly during this government's term of office the administration has relied upon orders in council, upon clauses in legislation which say that the governor in council "shall make regulations". A broad grant of powers having thus been given by parliament, the government is able, without returning to this House, to make decisions which affect the daily lives of Canadians.
I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a document which weighs about five pounds and contains over 1,000 pages. It is entitled "A Catalogue of Discretionary Powers in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970." This book, which simply lists the various discretionary powers held by the government-it does not elaborate on any of them-runs to more than 1,000 pages. What the government is proposing in the legislation now before us is to add to this list of the powers the government possesses to erode the freedom of Canadians without the consent or approval of the House of Commons. The government has increasingly been looking for ways in which to bypass parliament so that it can continue to rule Canada by order in council.
There was a book published several years ago entitled "The New Despotism," written by a former Lord Chief Justice of England, the Right Hon. Lord Hewart of Bury. Lord Hewart deals with means whereby a determined government could turn a parliamentary democracy into a despotism. I should like
May 12, 1978

to read a couple of passages from this book into the record because I believe they are germane to the subject we are considering.
Writers on the constitution have for a long time taught that its two leading features are the sovereignty from and the rule of law. To tamper with either of them was, it might be thought, a sufficiently serious undertaking. But how far more attractive to the ingenious and adventurous mind to deploy the one to defeat the other and to establish a despotism on the ruins of both! It is manifestly easy to point a superficial contrast between what was done or attempted in the days of our least wise kings and what is being done or attempted today. In those days the method was to defy parliament-and it failed. In these days the method is to cajole, to coerce and to use parliament-and it is strangely successful. The old despotism, which was defeated, offered parliament a challenge. The new despotism, which is not yet defeated, gives parliament an anaesthetic. The strategy is different but the goal is the same. It is to subordinate parliament, to evade the courts and to render the will, or the caprice of the executive unfettered and supreme.
That is the issue before us when we are faced with demands by the government for more power to allow it to rule by orders in council. I should like to put on the record also one further quotation from this book. It reads as follows:
It is one thing to confer power, subject to proper restrictions, to make regulations. It is another thing to give those regulations the force of a statute. It is one thing to make regulations which are to have no effect unless and until they are approved by parliament. It is another thing to make regulations behind the back of parliament which come into force without the assent or even the knowledge of parliament.
My third point was that the track record of this government with regard to governing by regulation is very bad. Nothing could be more germane when we are considering whether we should give the government the further discretionary power it is seeking. I will cite just one example. I would like to bring to the attention of the House today the report of the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. That committee examined the government's use of orders in council as a means of avoiding coming back to parliament to increase postal rates. The committee made this short but very fundamental recommendation:
Your joint committee reaffirms its objection in principle to the use by the Crown of subordinate legislation under section 13 of the Financial Administration Act to prevail against parliament. It reiterates its grave doubts as to the validity of relying on the general power in section 13 of the Financial Administration Act to set postal rates, to override the special enactments contained in sections 10 and 11 of the Post Office Act, to overcome the will of parliament as to the domestic letter rate expressed subsequently to the enactment of section 13 of the Financial Administration Act, or to empower the Postmaster General to set rates when parliament has empowered neither the governor in council nor anyone else to do so.
The amendment which has been proposed by my colleague would refer orders in council which are made by the government under the terms of the amendments to the Aeronautics Act back to parliament so that interested members of parliament could have the authoritiy to examine the orders in council to see whether the government had acted properly.
It would also make provision for a committee of parliament to study those orders in council. On the basis of the way this government has operated in the past, we know that even when the appropriate committee of parliament has studied the abuse which has been made of orders in council by this government,
Aeronautics Act
the government has simply decided to ignore the recommendations which have been made by parliament. When the issue of the increase in the postal rates was raised in parliament, the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne), in response to a question in the House, made this one short statement:
I think we should put to ourselves the more serious question of trying to have more efficient delivery of mail everywhere, instead of wasting our time arguing if the rates are legal or not.
What more scathing indictment of this government could there be than the fact that the Postmaster General says he believes that parliament is wasting its time in questioning whether the government has acted legally or not? How can the government have the temerity to come back to parliament and say that it wants a vast grant of power which would be unchecked by parliament, when its track record shows that it does not deserve it?
All the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vegre-ville asks for is simply that in cases where it is clear to members of parliament that the government has gone too far in making an order in council or a regulation which is offensive to the Canadian people and of concern to parliament, parliament should have the right to review that regulation and to hold the government to account. I suggest that when this power has been given to this government in the past it has historically abused it, and it is clear that parliament must have some remedy to ensure that its rights and the sovereignty of the people of Canada are protected.
No issue is more fundamental to parliament than the rule of parliament itself, and I think that is why the proposal which is being made in this motion in the name of the hon. member for Vegreville deserves the support of every member in this House.
The one last point I would like to make is that the government denies that there is a need to have this parliamentary scrutiny of its actions by order in council. It says that what the government will be doing by order in council will be so innocuous that parliament would be wasting its time even to consider it.
Let me put the proposition another way. If in fact the regulations which will be passed by the government by order in council will be innocuous and of little concern to parliament, what cause does the government have to fear that parliamen-ta;y scrutiny would in any way endanger its ability to act? Unless the government has something to hide, and unless the government expects to be abusing the power it is asking parliament to give to it, it should have no objection whatsoever to allowing parliament to maintain its very fundamental right of keeping a check over the activities of the government. The proposal which is being made in this motion is eminently sensible. It is designed to protect the rights of the people of Canada, and I think it deserves the support of every single member of this House.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose if any individual reviews his educational background he finds that by some joke of fate he may have had a particular subject taught in a particular way which is well

May 12, 1978
Aeronautics Act
remembered. That particular aspect of my experience in education was to have had a series of teachers who emphasized the use of language as applied both in English and in French, as it was taught to me. Unfortunately, the latter language was never taught to me to such a degree that 1 can speak it, but I well remember the teaching I received in both, the emphasis upon the use of language and its value in our everyday life.
I suppose what I am going to say this afternoon may be thought by certain members on both sides of this House to be repetitive and, to a degree, boring, but anything one values and wishes to promote may perhaps have to be the subject of repetition.
This bill is perhaps as good an example as any of the utter failure of the proper mechanical use of language. A piece of legislation is intended to be definitive in its object as it relates to the control of our society in one way or another. Because this legislation is not definitive or precise, it must lean on that crutch clause which appears in many bills in this House, the regulatory clause.
Regulatory clauses may sometimes include the phrase "notwithstanding any prior clause" or some other item which might be of consequence in the administration and intent of the particular bill involved. It is because of the practice of poor language that this government brings to us legislation requiring regulation to the extent that this and many other bills do. I am alarmed that this House, which has among its membership many outstanding barristers-most of them, of course, are on this side of the House, but the other side is also favoured with one or two-as the upholder of the law does not object in holy horror to the language of this bill and its transfer of power to the hands of an individual. This is the lazy man's way of presenting legislation. This legislation indicates improper consideration and lack of knowledge of its objective. It indicates lack of thought, lack of planning and, above all, bad government.
I am pleased that the regulatory clause of this bill has become a subject of debate because, while this principle may not relate specifically to aeronautics legislation, it relates to all legislation, and I think we must abandon the lazy man's way of planning the laws which regulate our society.
I suppose I would have to say that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has demonstrated to this House and to the country at large that he has a good command of the English language. His legal training and background should preclude the possibility that he, as a minister, would introduce legislation of this sloppy type. However, this legislation is not definitive or precise, and it is certainly not concise, and that should be the objective of all those who practise the mechanics of language.
In view of the fact the bill is sloppy and does not cover the field which will be later covered by regulation, I hope the government will indicate promptly that it will accept the amendment offered so that this House may consider the changes which may be made by regulation. Unfortunately, as pointed out by the last speaker, this is hidden law. I am going

to be repetetive. This is the kind of law which allows Canadians to go to bed innocent of any breach of legislation in our dominion, and wake up the next morning criminals. This is because the governor in council passed a regulation, behind closed doors, changing the rules of the game, as this bill will permit the governor in council to do.
When you think of a crutch you usually think of the maimed and unfortunates who are incapable of proper walking without some additional instrument to aid them. I submit that when a minister brings in an act which is as subject to regulation as this one is, which is as incomplete without regulation as this bill is, he is wearing a crutch. It indicates his incompetence by virtue of his use of the language in the bill which has been submitted for its purpose.
In the committee which sits on statutory instruments for this House, consideration is given to regulations which are passed by government. Although I may have missed something, it has not been drawn to my attention that government has accepted the fact that the statutory instruments committee has on occasion found fault with the regulations passed by government. In fact, on occasion I have found them reprehensible, neglectful, illegal and, worst of all, retroactive.
On one occasion when I participated in the deliberations of that committee, they were discussing a regulation passed to accommodate an error which had been made by the Canadian Feed Grains Board. The legislation spelled out very clearly some of the things they could do. However, having that basket clause at the bottom, it permitted them to circumvent the bill by virtue of regulation. They found they were in some conflict of certain aspects of their administration. They had to ask the governor in council to approve of an amendment which they had drafted and submitted to the proper minister who, in turn, submitted it to cabinet.
What that amendment did was legalize what could be properly classed as illegal behaviour by the board for a period of 15 to 18 months. That regulation was passed by cabinet and considered by the committee. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the government took no action to chastise or in any other way criticize the Canadian Feed Grains Board for their illegal behaviour. It patted them on the back, approved the regulation on a retroactive basis, and forgave them all of their sins.
That happened to be a relatively minor matter. Granted, the action which they took was probably positive as it related to the execution of their duties. However, it is an example of the incapacity of the draftsman to define the purpose of the act, and the crutch had to be used, a regulation. I want to emphasize the necessity of the House of Commons, with all the capabilities it has, having the opportunity to consider those regulations. It should have the opportunity to present them to the minister and receive his respect for the recommendations with regard to language. What we are talking about is incompetence in the use of language.
My early indoctrination into procedures of government in this country happened in the province of New Brunswick in the provincial legislature. I well remember about four people
May 12, 1978

whose minds were sharp and whose use of language was very much above average. There were such people as Gordon Fairweather, whom all hon. members know and respect, the late Babbit Parlee, the late George Mclnerney, the Hon. William West, who has shown himself to be an excellent member of the bench, and others. They analysed every bill presented to that caucus. They analysed it in a debate which demanded that the attorney general's department should present to government and to the province the type of language which was, as I suggested earlier, precise, concise, and definitive.
I raised this in committee many times. I asked that language be changed because it was ambiguous and did not fulfil the purpose outlined by the minister. That little legislature produced, while those minds were directing, legislation of the type which did not require regulation to the degree that this does.
There is, of course, a place for regulation. That place is for the minister's use so that he may to some degree direct the fashion in which the intent of the law is administered by his employees. However, it is not intended to amend the law so that his employees may administer the law as they see fit. That is precisely what is happening right here.
Examples of regulations are probably more obvious as they come from the fisheries department than any other department of government. I am reasonably familiar with that. Some of them have started as low down as the fisheries officer who, on his own, can virtually make a regulation. His superiors back him up after he has made a ruling. There are regulations which fishermen have not heard of before. Demands are made on them after they have obtained a licence and a guide for its use. That is a serious abuse of the regulatory power extended in the blank cheque legislation for which this government demands approval by this House.
1 commend to the minister John Gray, Q.C., presently a member of the staff of the CTC. In that provincial legislature he made the necessary adjustments and became part of the drafting team which produced a type of legislation which we should have in this House as well as in the province of New Brunswick. Since we cannot have that kind of legislation, it is absolutely imperative that there be some vehicle which will give a meaningful opportunity to examine regulations, preferably before they become effective, preferably before they reach the stage of being gazetted because, after they have been gazetted, they are law. It is then too late, unless one can obtain an amendment. The subjects of this country are subject to the orders in council which have been passed. There should be a vehicle at the disposal of this House for the consideration of regulations.
The previous speaker mentioned that he had a catalogue which showed merely the names and numbers of orders in council which government has issued, approved, and incorporated into the statutes of this country. However, I read somewhere that a committee or group had been commissioned to determine how many regulations there are in Canada, and that it would probably require 40,000 pages to print them all. If I am incorrect, I ask any member of the government to correct
Aeronautics Act
me, but I am quite sure that is the figure that appeared in a news release some time within the last year. Since a 1,000-page volume would be necessary to list the names and numbers of them, I suppose it is not excessive to suggest that it might take 40,000 pages to print the real content of all those regulations. Canada is over burdened with regulations.
In the field of air transportation, a loyal maritimer or a resident of eastern Canada would suggest that we have permitted a scheduling structure which is detrimental to service in that area. An example of the lack of control in scheduling can be seen if one looks at the flights between Ottawa and Atlantic Canada. Our regional airline, EPA, has scheduled flights to Montreal. The Air Canada schedule includes a flight departing for Ottawa at the moment of the arrival of the EPA flight. A passenger is dumped at Gate No. 42 in Montreal and is expected to board the next plane leaving from Gate No. 1 within an instant. The distance between those two gates is practically the maximum with which one can be faced. Yet neither legislation nor regulation has interceded on behalf of proper economic arrangements for both airlines and proper convenience for those who travel to and from Atlantic Canada.
If Air Canada is late or if EPA is early, and if one rushes, he might make the connection. The alternative is to wait up to two hours in the Montreal airport in order to make a connection with the flight to Ottawa. Also, it is a sorry situation that it is more convenient for a person to fly from Ottawa to Fredericton for an evening appointment in Saint John than it is to fly to Saint John for that meeting. One wastes less time, although those cities are approximately 70 miles apart.
Only this week I experienced this situation. Because of appointments in Ottawa and appointments in Saint John, it was necessary to leave for Fredericton in the late afternoon and return to Ottawa the next morning in order to meet my commitments. I saved several hours by arranging my trip in that manner. This is not good.
If there is regulatory capacity, at least it should be exercised on behalf of the people who ordinarily use the system. I refer to regulations and contractual agreements which have been made by the Government of Canada in respect of privileges extended to regional and third level air corporations. The improper control of those airlines and national airlines has led to the economic demise of some regional groups, the sell-out of others, and the proposed sell-out of some yet to come. Existing legislation does not correct these situations, and regulations in this legislation will not do anything to alleviate them.
I have every sympathy with Canadians who are required to live under a structure in which regulations may be law. How can a lawyer be sure that his client is operating within the laws of the Department of Transport after this act becomes law? The regulatory capability within the law virtually supersedes the law itself. Since that regulatory capability will not be taken out by the government, on behalf of Canada, its citizens, its airlines, its transportation, and on behalf of better government, I plead for the acceptance of this amendment. Since one

May 12, 1978
Aeronautics Act
cannot define what he wants to do by law, and since it is necessary to rely on the crutch of the legal cripple, then the government should concede that this amendment should be passed. That would show the House of Commons and Canada what particular crutch is needed, why it is needed, and its impact. Let us go to bed innocent and get up innocent. Let us not go to bed innocent and get up guilty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate at this stage in the debate on Bill C-4, and particularly the amendment standing in the name of hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski). That amendment accentuates the principle many members on this side of the House are attempting to illustrate. When power is given to ministers by order in council and power is delegated to boards, there comes a point in time when wide and vague legislation, in effect legislating by regulation, must come to an end.
The complexity of modern society and the technical subjects contained in bills put members of parliament into a position where they cannot become directly involved in a lot of the detail contained in legislation. Certainly that is the reason why there are so many general bills giving power to ministers by order of governor in council to make necessary regulations in order to implement the purpose in bills.
If I had spoken three or four days ago in the waning days of this parliament, I would have indicated that perhaps these are waning days for some people in parliament. Apparently parliament will continue for a while. A week or so ago the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) brought in a bill containing fundamental amendments to the Criminal Code. Of course the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) was the minister of justice at one point. Those amendments covered many subjects. One was an entire reclassification of the offence of rape. The effect was to take rape out of the dictionary, more or less, and rename it as indecent assault, and other forms of aggravated assault against persons.
Perhaps I do not know all the details of the Aeronautics Act. Certainly I do not know all the details of the regulations passed under the Aeronautics Act. During the several years I have been in the House I have watched an increasing tendency to provide unlimited, vague powers to governors in council to make regulations. I am beginning to understand, in a parliamentary sense and not in a criminal sense, the rape of parliament, if power is given to ministers to make regulations which involve the public of the land. If we are talking about many complex technical and scientific subjects, obviously members of parliament cannot become involved in all aspects of these.


Mrs. Holt:: Obviously the hon. member is stretching the subject.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Since I am not in an angry mood this afternoon, I will not raise the timbre of my voice too high. The Minister of Justice should define some of the forms of parlia-

mentary rape that government has incorporated in its bills. In effect that is what we are receiving.
The debate today would not be taking place if we were dealing with another subject matter. We are talking about the Aeronautics Act and the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville. In very simple terms that amendment indicates, if a regulation is passed by the governor in council affecting the aeronautics of the land, particularly the safety of flights, that regulation, upon the signatures of 20 members, should come on to the floor of the House for debate. Then it would be referred to the appropriate standing committee, which has a government majority. In that event, the government controls the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. You have the debate, the report comes back, and at the most four hours are taken in this House to consider the regulation.
As I say, the only regulations which would ever get into that cycle are ones affecting the safety of people using the airlines. You might have one in the cycle in respect of the charges at airports which also affect the public. This happens when the public is concerned and directly involved. That is much different from an awful lot of bills in respect of which the public is very indirectly involved, as the public is in respect of whatever we do here in terms of the general law. The public is also indirectly involved in terms of the application of regulations passed under the law.
In this case which deals with aeronautics, because of the fact that more and more Canadians are flying each year, the hon. member for Vegreville introduced an amendment. That amendment is the subject matter now before us for debate. It in effect is an attempt to leave with parliament some input through this public process in respect of something that affects the public.
Why the minister should sit there so Gibraltar-like or sterile of thought and not receive this amendment with positive acclaim, I really fail to understand. When bills come before the House they are not in perfect form. That is certainly true of this government's bills, again without being too critical. One of the reasons this government is in so much difficulty is that never has any government drafted more faulty legislation which has to be corrected in committees on any subject than has this government.
Bill C-4 was before the committee where certain changes were made. At least at that time the minister acceded to requests by opposition and government members, some of whom had a hand in this. At least then the bill, which was just to give the minister the power to make regulations, was corrected. As the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) has said, the only time one knows about the regulation is when he finds out he is in violation of it. You can go to bed at night under one regulation and wake up in the morning to realize there has been a change because the minister has signed an order in council. At least through the diligent work of the members of the committee the minister was persuaded
May 12, 1978

to see some light, and four or five changes were made in respect of notice to the public about things that could affect the public, for example, regarding air safety.
There were changes made. There was a change to clause 2 of the bill which in effect sets up the first ray of sunlight in this regulatory process. This is something members on this side of the House have been trying to be consistent about for years. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has been trying for years to get a freedom of information bill. He has proposed other amendments to bring some light to the regulatory process. To give the Minister of Transport credit, he finally agreed at the committee to some changes which go part way down the road, allowing a little light to filter into this regulatory process.
Clause 2 now says that a regulation passed shall at least be published in the Canada Gazette for 90 days, and during that 90 days if someone feels very aggrieved, upset or affected, there can be, and I think the word is, consultation, with the minister and the department, with no great direction regarding the definition as to what "consultation" should be. I guess you could write a letter and he might answer it. I guess you could try to get an appointment with him and he might be able to see you if he was not too busy. However, at least there is to be publication of the regulation, and that is a step in the right direction.
As my hon. friend pointed out when he introduced this amendment when the bill was being debated on March 13, there is a most interesting statistic regarding the year 1976. That was the last year for which we have a record of the number of orders in council passed. In that year there were 3,326 orders in council passed, of which only 653 were gazetted, or ever shown the light of day. No one knows about the rest until a Canadian citizen runs into one. The rules of the game may have been changed, but that citizen would not even know of the change and would not receive notice of how they were changed until someone in officialdom informed him that was not the way things are being done because a new regulation has been passed through the simple means of a signature.
At least through the diligence of members of the committee there is a slight improvement to the bill. We have at least made sure that regulations affecting aeronautics and air travel, with particular interest to public safety, will be published and given the light of day for at least 90 days.
You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that not too many of us read the Canada Gazette. As members of parliament we get copies in our office. I must say that it is an interesting piece of information. I was trying to ask a question today of the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) about something which was gazetted and will affect all the radio ham operators in the land after the publication time runs out. Quite frankly, this has taken a little time to catch on because most ham operators in the country do not read the Canada Gazette. I suggest, with deference, Mr. Speaker, that although you are learned in procedural definitions, with the high talent and grace with which you occupy the chair, part of your bedtime reading is not the Canada Gazette, unless you really want to
Aeronautics Act
go to sleep very quickly. In that case perhaps you could read it to put yourself to sleep, but then you might not remember what you had read when you woke up in the morning. The point of the matter is that it is a not a very well read public document.
We are talking about the public in respect of air travel, and what better forum is there than the House of Commons, where the representatives of 22 million Canadians sit, to have some input in respect of air regulations which are to be written by the bureaucrats? Those bureaucrats are going to write those regulations in all sincerity in the ivory towers of the Department of Transport. I guess they will be written in that big number two tower of Place de Ville, or at least that is where the Ministry of Transport used to be. That is a beautiful building. They can be up on the twenty-fourth or thirty-fourth floor of what is not even colloquially an ivory tower because it is all glass.
They can be looking out of those glass towers at the Gatineau Hills and the Ottawa River, and get carried away with writing the script, and write regulations they think are sensible. Then the minister, who is harried, comes back from the west where he has been trying to maintain one of the outposts of Liberaldom-whether it is "Fort Lang" or "Horner Hall"-and signs these documents without really knowing what is in them. He may be out in one of those places west of Thunder Bay all week, or all week end, doing his best, as we all do from time to time as politicians, trying to maintain government strength in certain parts of the country. He might be doing departmental work, and then on Monday morning or Tuesday he gets these sheets of paper to sign. He does not really look at those orders in council. They have been prepared by somebody else, put on his desk, and he is expected to sign them because somebody before him has ticked them and recommended them for the minister's signature. That is how the process works.
If I were the Minister of Transport I would be in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Vegreville because it would make it possible, when there was a regulation affecting the public and air safety that might be embarrassing, to have an outlet for that frustration and a forum where the mistake could be corrected. Such a mistake could be correct in a procedural way without anyone having really to take ministerial responsibility for an official goof. This is what would be accomplished by the amendment of my friend. It would allow a debate here or a referral to the committee. The suggestion that this would tie up parliament is ridiculous, because other than the estimates which are referred to committees and a direct reference of other work, our committees are not always functioning.
Members of parliament, both in the opposition and in the government, are somewhat sensible creatures and will not be referring during debate in the House of Commons to a number of regulations, certainly those of a highly technical nature. As a matter of fact most members likely do not know a darned thing about those regulations. However, members are in contact with the public when travelling back and forth across this

May 12, 1978
Aeronautics Act
country, even more so than a lot of well-meaning public servants who write the regulations.
Members come into contact with the public, specifically small craft operators. We each have small airports in our ridings and we all pass through the larger airports on our trips back to Ottawa. We often have members of the public talking to us about matters that affect them, perhaps a specific regulation they have come across, wondering what it is all about.
Surely, if there is public outcry against a regulation that was conceived in all sincerity but based on an incorrect assumption, this amendment would allow the Elouse of Commons to debate it and refer it to committee for study. Once out of committee, hopefully the regulation would be changed. I give credit to the minister for going so far as to publish the regulations but it seems to me that like night follows day it is natural and logical to go one step further so that parliament would have some input into a kind of regulation that very well would have aroused the public. In effect members of parliament themselves should have the opportunity to take an interest in it, but without the passage of this amendment, within a year, regardless of what government is in power, there will be a regulation under the Aeronautics Act that will have insulted and irritated in a most meaningful way the public of the land and thus will have to be changed.
No one is suggesting that our regulations are infallible. In fact, the more you get the more problems you have and the more chances of mistake. An example of this situation is when the government wanted to levy an airport tax and the minister was proposing increases of 400 per cent to 500 per cent in what the public would have to pay to get their aeroplane tickets. There was a public outcry and the minister had, in effect, to eat crow and make some changes. If the minister could make a change in that instance, certainly there should be a chance for public debate on this amendment so that members of parliament will have a chance to reflect the concerns of the public in something so vital as the Aeronautics Act and air safety under the act.
The essence of this debate is not the pros and cons of the Aeronautics Act but the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Vegreville, who is merely asking that when there has been a public outcry about something affecting the air safety of the land, members of parliament can debate it. It will be the only time members will be interested in debating it and getting it referred to committee, because it will be important enough to affect the travelling public from coast to coast. This amendment merely asks the House of Commons to refer it to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. Since the government controls the majority in committee it will not get hung up there, and if the government does not want it it will come back here and be debated for only four hours. But at least the parliament of Canada would have an input into something that affects the public of the land.

We continue to see the erosion of the power of parliament, which in the old days was to protect the power of the purse, We know from our amendments and the way in which we deal with estimates now in the standing committees that the powers of parliament have already been eroded to a great extent and that we are almost unnecessary in terms of examining the estimates. Surely, in something as important as the safety of the airways we should have some input in a parliamentary way that is delegated to the standing committee on transport which is very involved in this subject. Recommendations could then be made by that committee. Mistakes will be made-innocently-but will still have to be corrected. All the amendment is suggesting is that we use this parliamentary forum. I hope hon. members will consider the proposal seriously and not vote it down merely because it comes from the hon. member for Vegreville.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, sitting here listening to the debate this afternoon, I am reminded of the motto or creed of the Jaycees, the Junior Chamber of Commerce organization in Canada, which says that they believe in a government of laws and not a government of men. It led me to conclude that if this Liberal government has a motto or creed it would be just the opposite, namely that they believe in a government of men and not of laws. Every piece of legislation that I am aware of in the six years I have been here contains clauses like the one we are discussing today, an offensive provision which says that the governor in council or the minister may make regulations, et cetera. In fact, that has become such a prominent part of government legislation that social scientists looking at the trends would have to conclude that the Liberal government will bring in at the start of a parliamentary session a single clause bill saying that the governor in council or the minister shall do whatever he wants. That is the result of clauses that provide this very arbitrary power of making regulations and have the same impact as any other form of law and legislation passed by this House.
As we travel down the path to more and more non-democratic use of regulations, more and more legislation and law by regulation as opposed to legislation passed in this House, we are surely travelling down the path toward what is less and less a democracy in which people are governed by laws established by their elected representatives.
Last fall, I was interested in this question of regulations and the extent we are governed by them, so I phoned the Department of Justice and inquired whether there was a compilation of all government regulations. As I have indicated, every piece of legislation has provision for regulations, and I wanted to know how many there were and whether a list had ever been compiled. The Department of Justice instructed me that they were working on a compilation and expected it to be completed and published this spring. When I asked whether I could obtain a copy, they informed me it would be possible but it would be very awkward because it consisted of 12,000 sheets of computer print-out. When I asked what it would be like when it was published, they indicated that it would consist of 40 volumes of 800 pages each-regulations flowing from this
May 12, 1978

kind of legislation and which have not been examined in terms of their impact by democratically elected representatives.
Regulations are passed at a horrendous rate in cabinet, with the quick stroke of a pen, and at no time have they had the careful consideration that they should be given with regard to their effect on the people. Last year, as was mentioned earlier, some 3,400 orders in council were passed by this government, a huge amount of law making which has never been exposed to the public and which this body has never had a chance to examine or adjudicate upon.
In addition to this democratic question, which by far and away is the most important issue raised, we have the question of cost. The Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott), in plugging his new appointment as "comptroller of the paper work burden", offered to the House and the people of Canada the figure of $10 billion as the indirect cost upon the economy of regulations made by government. That is not just the administrative cost, but the total cost to the economy. It does not necessarily mean there is no value, but that value is nowhere near $10 billion. So we have the Minister of State (Small Business) saying that he is going to start to deregulate and eliminate some of these regulations and reduce this $10 billion cost which is borne by the economy.
In earlier times the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated that he would undertake systematic deregulation so that people would not be fettered by the thousands and thousands of regulations emanating from government. On the one hand we have the Prime Minister and the Minister of State (Small Business) making statements like that, and on the other hand we have another minister introducing legislation which imposes more of the type of things that the Minister of State (Small Business) claims is detrimental to the economy and to society. It makes one wonder if they talk to each other. How can they say, on the one hand, that they are going to reduce the role of government by deregulating government, and on the other introduce legislation which provides for the arbitrary imposition of more regulations, for no democratic control, and for no opportunity for this House or anybody else to debate the merits?
Surely, when we have a minister indicating that the cost of making these regulations is $10 billion, it is reasonable to require, to request, to provide some opportunity for the people's representatives in this House or in one of its committees to examine these regulations and see whether they are appropriate, how they fit into the total range of regulations, and to make sure that they simply do not become another burden that costs more than whatever benefit might accrue.
In the United States, President Carter has indicated that in the future any new regulations-such as those similar to the type contemplated in this bill-which are imposed upon the economy must be accompanied by a cost/benefit analysis. Regulations will not be examined or approved until there has been an associated cost/benefit analysis. They have recognized the horrendous cost of unnecessary regulations and that any
Aeronautics Act
regulation at all has a cost. Any wise decision-making process should involve some cost/benefit analysis. There is no such provision in this bill, of course, although the amendment proposed by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), would at least provide an opportunity for debate. Questions of cost could be raised at that time.
I think it is fair to ask why the government continually introduces this kind of legislation. Why do they always put in an escape clause to the effect that the governor in council may pass regulations as he sees fit? The answer is, of course, that there is a need for flexibility. The problems that may arise in a certain area cannot be foretold so there is need for flexibility on the part of government. I think we all understand that. The ultimate flexibility, of course, is the clause that says the government can do whatever it wants to do. Obviously, when we reach that stage we are no longer a democracy but some sort of tyranny. It is therefore very important to watch just how far we go in that direction.
When the question was raised members of the government replied that we live under a system of ministerial responsibility. It is that ministerial responsibility which precludes any inappropriate use of the power that a government gains through this type of legislation. If we look up the definition of "responsibility" in a dictionary, we see that to be responsible means to be accountable-to be held to account. That is the kind of language used. Then we must ask, to whom are ministers accountable and how is ministerial responsibility exercised? If ministers are accountable to the people, which is frequently claimed, then why is parliament here? If they are only responsible to the people at election time, why have a parliament at all? Why do we sit here if we cannot hold ministers responsible? Surely the answer must be obvious to anyone who watches the proceedings in this House. It must be obvious that we have no authority to hold ministers responsible. There is no way that this House of Commons can hold ministers responsible for their actions.
When the government is challenged on this matter of seeking authority through clauses that allow them to set regulations, they claim they need flexibility-that ministerial flexibility is the safety valve to ensure there is no abuse of this authority. If they sincerely believe that ministerial responsibility is a check on excessive abuse of the right to set regulations which have the effect of law, then surely they must accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vegreville.
The sole purpose of the amendment is to provide the opportunity for the House of Commons to hold ministers to account-to ensure that ministerial responsibility means something. The amendment in no way, shape or form reduces the flexibility of the government. It in no way reduces the minister's flexibility. He may still pass regulations where he sees the need but it provides that the House of Commons may hold the minister responsible for the regulations he recommends to the governor in council.
Surely anyone who values our democratic system, who values parliamentary democracy, has to accept the validity of

May 12, 1978
Aeronautics Act
the amendment. Without it there is no opportunity for the House of Commons to hold the minister responsible. Without it how can anyone with respect for honesty and truth claim that we have a system of ministerial responsibility? We cannot have that unless there is some mechanism to effect it, and that is all the amendment does. It merely provides that if 20 or more members of the House of Commons deem it appropriate, the minister can be required to explain the impact of his regulations, can be required to justify his regulations and submit the matter to a vote of a committee of the House.
As I have indicated, the people in this country who look beyond the short-term horizons in terms of our democratic system must be and indeed are-judging by the reaction that I am getting, as I am sure others are-very concerned about the direction in which the country is taking our democratic institutions. Year after year the role of parliament and the role of the representatives of the people is diminished. More and more authority becomes concentrated in the ministries. Senior civil servants and individuals as knowledgeable as Simon Reisman, a former deputy minister of finance, have seen this happening. He recently indicated that governments today are involved in more and more things in more and more ways, and doing things badly, acknowledging that the amount of authority that is concentrated within the upper levels of the bureaucracy, such as organizations like the Privy Council office and so on is horrendous. Indeed, I do not think there is another country in the world that has less democratic control over the state than Canada-that is, no country that claims to be a democracy.
So I would beseech the minister and the government as well as members opposite to look again at this minor amendment. It will not reduce the ability of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) or his successors to manage the operation of that department, to introduce regulations for the benefit of the safety of the public and so on. This amendment will merely provide a small opportunity in a real way for the exercise of democratic ministerial responsibility. If there is some feeling for our system, some concern that a democracy must be maintained in this country in fact as well as in form, I am sure members opposite will find it easy to vote for this amendment and bring it into law and thereby improve this legislation significantly.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am the seconder of the motion in the name of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) which is the subject matter of debate in the House this afternoon. As such, I think I should say something with respect to this amendment. As my friend the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) has said, it is designed primarily to bring back into parliament something which has been lost in terms of the legislative process and control over the processes of government. Like the hon. member for Calgary Centre, I find people saying that that has occurred. Studious observers of the parliamentary system have indicated they are alarmed by the tendency to move to a

greater degree toward the use of regulations and guidelines rather than statute law which is passed openly in parliament.
I agree completely with those who have said that government cannot be fettered and that it is impossible in a complex age for everything to be set forth in statute form. It is equally possible and equally with precedent in this House of Commons to ensure that parliament at some time has at least the occasion to pass judgment on regulations, and that is the precise purpose of this amendment. It does not say that parliament must make a judgment in terms of a vote or that parliament must waste time debating the regulations. It merely says that if parliament is moved by the substance or the direction of legislation by regulation, or legislation by order in council, then parliament will be given this opportunity to consider it.
I say, sir, it is not without precedent for a very good reason. My recollection indicates that in the recent bill establishing the Anti-Inflation Board, which is within the life of this parliament, the right of referral to parliament for a second look was given in that bill. Also, in the recently passed legislation dealing with the northern pipeline, there was established by a rule change in our House a committee on which the duty was placed of overseeing the construction in the interests of Canada and to report to parliament. If my recollection serves me correctly, there was also some legislation affecting petroleum administration in this country which called for a review, for a look back at the legislation to see how it is functioning. I suggest those precedents are within the limitations of this very simple and direct amendment moved by my colleague from Vegreville.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines) was in the House a few moments ago. I watched him on a local television program the other evening. The member for Burnaby-Seymour recently announced that he will not be contesting the next election. He said that he was frustrated generally with the life of a member of parliament. He made no reference to it in terms of his work on behalf of his constituents. He said that he enjoyed that work. He was not complaining about the travelling which is so necessary when one is a member from British Columbia and must go back and forth each week. This is a tremendous burden that a member bears. But that was not worrying him. What was troubling him was that parliament has lost touch somehow or other with the legislative process and its execution; that the processes of our parliament were not in tune with the necessities of the twentieth century. I believe this was the phrase he used, if I understood him correctly.
What has happened in the twentieth century is that we have moved to legislation by order in council to a great degree. In fact, more and more it is being done that way, and parliament is getting out of touch with such a legislative process. Even if the public servants who make the regulations are well inten-tioned, and I think most of them are, they are not elected and they are not responsible in the sense that a member of parliament is. There is no great opportunity for the public servants of the country to obtain feedback from the nation as to the
May 12, 1978

effect of legislation, and subsequently regulations and orders in council under legislation, as there is for members of parliament, because that is our job.
I was so impressed by the television program the other night that, after midnight when the program was over, I telephoned the station and spoke to Mr. Brooke McNabb who introduced the interviewer of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour. It was a very thought-provoking interview and I expressed my sentiments to Mr. McNabb of that station. It is a problem that we have here, a problem that leads to frustration on the part of members. It is a problem that can lead to real injustices from time to time. They may occur inadvertently, because regulations on the whole are well intentioned, but sometimes they are misdirected.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure with respect to the regulations made under the Aeronautics Act that this parliament has the opportunity, if it wishes, to review them. It would be a very foolish parliament indeed if it were to usurp the right of the government to govern. That is not the point. But it would be an equally foolish parliament which would not agree that perhaps the time has come for us to follow the process that was begun in these pieces of legislation that I talked about.
How important is the process? If I may for a few moments, I will deal with some things which indicate how deeply ingrained is the process now in Canada of legislating outside of this place by order in council or regulation. I am referring to a number of things not directly and specifically related to the Aeronautics Act but to the abuse which the amendment that is before the House is intended to obviate. I am happy that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) is in the House. She attended the meeting of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments yesterday. She spoke out fully and strongly about the problems concerning regulations under the Customs Act. I hope that she enters the debate, because I do not think the problem is only for the opposition, it is a problem for this whole parliament.
I have in my hand a brief to the special committee to review personnel management and the merit principle in the public service. This deals, among other things, with regulations which were purported to be passed under a statute. As a result of those regulations certain things happened. I will quote from the brief because it shows how the operations of the merit system, in this case, were affected. The issue was finally placed before the statutory instruments committee of this House which had to deal with the matter. This is what the brief had to say about the use of regulations under one particular statute:
Well over 8,000 appointments were made in the public service in 1976 without competition. These appointments were not made in conformity with the merit system but were made pursuant to section 7(2) of the public service employment regulations under which if the responsible staffing officer is of the opinion that a competition or other process of personnel selection would not result in the identification of a candidate better qualified than the person who is willing and able to accept appointment, he may appoint that person.
Aeronautics Act
Because of the widespread delegation of authority in the public service at the present time, these opinions expressed by staffing officers have the force of law, and by using this power they have overcome the fundamental principle governing public service appointments-that they should be based on merit. The brief goes on to say in this case:
This section leaves room for internal patronage in the public service by permitting departments to appoint persons without competition.
In 1976, as was admitted, this was done to the tune of some
8,000	appointments.
I might quote a host of other instances to show the effect some of these regulations have had. For instance, I could refer to the program which flowed from the Official Languages Act and its repercussions on the public service; it resulted in a set of guidelines, a set of rules, which had the force of law for whomever is subject to them. Now, with a change of direction, we find there is a new set of rules in place.
The same kind of thing can occur under the statute we are considering in the context of the Aeronautics Act. We in this party take great exception to making law by statute behind closed doors. We did so particularly when the gun control legislation was before parliament. A great deal of the power which would normally be expressed in the statute emerged by way of regulations. If this is a very real problem for those who must concern themselves professionally with statutes and regulations, it poses a dreadful problem for the general public.
The most improper misuse of the regulatory power which occurs to me is, of course, to be found in the Post Office Department. A report was made to the House of Commons not long ago with respect to the use of the regulatory power to increase postal rates from 12 cents to 14 cents. The committee found this method of increasing postal rates to be improper and the House of Commons concurred in its report. Notwithstanding all this, the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) has told us he does not care what the House of Commons says.
It is important we should bear such things in mind when considering whether the government should be given further powers to act by order in council. I can understand the necessity for a great many things being done by regulation and in accordance with guidelines. In an increasingly complex world it cannot be otherwise. But I trust it will not be foreign to the thinking of members of this House that it is equally necessary that, where there is excessive regulatory power, or a great deal of such power, we should have the right at some stage to consider these things in the House of Commons.
I commend to hon. members the speech made earlier in the debate by my hon. friend for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in which he set forth very clearly the danger which faces this parliament and, I suppose, every legislative body in the world with respect to what is happening because of the complexity of society, on the one hand, and, I am sorry to say, lazy draftsmanship on the other. You know, Mr. Speaker, it is much easier for a legal draftsman faced with a complicated problem to succumb to the temptation of deferring a difficult section to be dealt with by regulation, something which can be done later and at leisure. The statutory instruments committee deals

May 12, 1978
Aeronautics Act
every week with a thick pile of documents which its counsel considers may have been passed improperly, cases where officials have taken unto themselves a discretion which was not contemplated in the statute or even in the regulations. Mr. Speaker, if the statutory instruments committee has done anything at all, it has at least been able to alert those who draft the regulations in an attempt to make statutes work that legislation is the function of parliament. The committee acts as a brake on the practice of exceeding the power given in the statute.
The amendment does not say that the operation of the Aeronautics Act shall grind to a halt. It does not say that the powers given to the government under the act can suddenly be brought to an end. It does not say that the government has no regulatory power at all. It does not say that the Minister of Transport cannot exercise the discretion which is appropriately left in any minister. It says none of those things. It merely says that, if one chooses to move by regulation under the Aeronautics Act, there is a duty on the government and, indeed, on this parliament at least to examine whether those regulations are appropriately enacted, and that parliament should have an opportunity to pass judgment on that openly.
While the Minister of Transport is in the House, I want to say to him that in view of the precedents we have already made in this parliament-indeed, in this session of parliament-I cannot understand, frankly, why the government should disagree with this amendment, unless it is because it would be an inconvenience, unless the government wishes to hide something or unless it feels there might be something done which parliament ought not to see. I cannot believe there should be any objection to this amendment. I cannot believe that at the end of the debate on the report stage it ought not to to be axiomatic or follow automatically that this government would allow this report stage amendment to proceed.
Just before I sit down, I want to ask the Minister of Transport to reconsider what I believe is his view that this amendment ought not to go forward, because I think it is important to our process. Although we have disagreements with the minister from time to time, I think he has some feeling for that process. But I think it is important that this kind of thing appear in a bill which affects such a broad spectrum of the Canadian community. I ask the minister to consult with his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) and, if the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) is in the House, with him, to see whether as this debate draws to a close the government cannot reconsider its position with respect to what is really a fundamental matter of parliamentary government.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, 1 must say that preceding speakers have spoken very adequately, but this subject is of great and dire importance not only to this House but to all Canadians and to all those who believe in our system of parliamentary democracy. Is there any need whatsoever to have to make such an amendment? Quite frankly, I think this

legislation by regulation is the phoniest blooming thing I have ever seen in my life. When I was in law school-and that is a number of years ago-I was taught that there would be no way under the British parliamentary system of justice that parliament would pass regulations unless they came back at a subsequent date to parliament for approval. That was the principle, and I suggest that that still is the principle of common law under the British system.
Having that in mind, I suggest that this amendment is too mild. It should have been more forceful. We should have no regulations at all because regulations are and have been abused time after time, to the detriment of the citizens of this country.
Let us look back 760 or so years to Runnymede when King John decided to recognize parliament. Prior to that he governed by decree or edict. Orders in council or regulations are edicts of one man or group of men called the governor in council. In King John's time it was necessary to pass the Magna Carta, and from that time we were supposed to have responsible government, freedom in government and democracy for the sake of the people.
I suggest that regulations are like a cancer. They get worse and worse, and that cancer is getting to be terminal because it eventually will result in the death of parliament. At one time the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that parliament was becoming irrelevant. Parliament will and does become irrelevant through the use of legislation by regulation. Making a regulation is like drafting a document and putting at the end of it "One party may do this unilaterally". That is just exactly what is being provided in this legislation, that one party or group of parties may do something unilaterally. This invention of orders of council or regulations by a minister is far more serious than one would think. I suggest that regulations can be dictatorial and improper, and they can bring bad results to the whole system of parliament.
This practice reflects not only on ministers and their ministries but also on the House of Commons for allowing this type of legislation to go through without a clause such as the one suggested by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski). I suggest that it is not proper that we should have other bills without clauses like this one. Possibly there should be a special act to cover all regulations so that they can be reviewed by parliament and be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
We talk of responsible government. Responsible government does not permit legislation by regulation. The people want to know and we want to know what the results will be and what is happening. Regulations are an invention-perhaps a fiction- but we are not being fair to ourselves or to our constituents by permitting this type of thing to happen. I know that some hon. members have already suggested to the minister that he consider this amendment. This amendment would not stop him from making his regulations; it does not go that far. The amendment is very fair to the minister. With this amendment he could make his regulations, but upon a petition presented by so many members of the House the minister could be
May 12, 1978

requested to allow his regulations to be scrutinized by the House and by a committee of this House.
I think that would be very fair, and I say seriously that if we do not stop this legislation by regulation, somewhere down the line we will cause the death of parliament, the death of responsible government and the death of democracy in Canada. I hope the minister will take these words seriously. They are meant to be taken seriously and, if they are, people will wake up to the problem which is the height and depth of this country.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise my voice with those who have expressed concern about a development which has crept into our parliamentary practice. The whole purpose of the amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), is to provide parliament with a safety valve. It is not enough for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), a distinguished lawyer, a former head of the faculty of law of one of the great universities of the country and a former minister of justice, to sit back complacently in the knowledge that we have a Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. As a good lawyer the minister surely knows that that is not enough. He knows that that committee cannot possibly keep abreast of the hundreds and hundreds of regulations which flow from bills which are passed by this House.
I recall a few years ago a very important bill coming before this House, a bill dealing with packaging and labelling. That bill received a great deal of attention by the House, and rightly so. It was the first real thrust by the government to provide a degree of consumer protection in the area of packaging and labelling. I remember debating that bill at great length in this House. I remember the bill going before a standing committee of the House where it received a great deal of attention. We heard a number of witnesses and studied the provisions of that bill with great care and in great detail. The bill became law. However, the operative part of that bill was the regulations which were to flow from it. The bill provided for publication of the regulations before they would be promulgated into law. We must not forget that regulations are a very important part of statute law. The fact is the regulations were not gazetted and promulgated into law until almost three years after the bill was passed by this House.
The extraordinary thing about that piece of legislation which struck me at the time was that there was never any reference whatsoever to this House or to a committee of this House of the regulations that had been put together by order in council to make that bill operative.
It is possible for regulations to go beyond the ambit of a bill. Indeed, there have been occasions when regulations have gone beyond what parliament intended.
What my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville, is trying to do by this amendment is to provide a safety valve
Aeronautics Act
whereby if we find that the regulations which will flow from this bill go beyond what we intend by the legislation, we will have the right to call those regulations before the House and examine them. Surely that is a reasonable proposition. It does not follow that we will exercise that prerogative; it is merely put there in the event that the government and its senior bureaucrats attempt to go beyond the legislation which parliament passes.
When he spoke on this bill a few days ago, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) referred to what I would call the case load of the statutory instrument committee. He referred to the fact that the committee had to examine over
3,000	regulations put in place by this government to cover various bills.
If we pass bad law, a bill that is going to be unjust or is going to take away somebody's rights or hurt somebody in some way, we have to be accountable for it as legislators. However, there is absolutely no accountability for the regulations of the government, none whatsoever. These regulations are put together by nameless, faceless bureaucrats who hardly ever follow the debates in this House. I look into the official galleries today. Where are the public servants who will draw up these regulations? Are they here listening to members of parliament express their concern over the danger of regulations going beyond the ambit of a bill? Will they sit down and read Hansard? I doubt it very much.
My colleague has put forward a very reasonable proposition, one that should surely lend itself to the serious consideration of the Minister of Transport. It is not an irresponsible move; it is made in the knowledge that we as legislators have the ultimate responsibility for any regulations that will be put together as a result of this bill. All we are saying by this amendment is that we would have the right to call these regulations before the House for a short debate if we deemed that the regulations did in fact go beyond the authority given to the government by the bill. That is a reasonable proposition.
There is concern in this country today over the growth in government, especially the uncontrolled growth of the federal government. When we have this kind of uncontrolled growth in the Government of Canada, it means that somewhere along the line some citizen of this country is getting all tangled up in red tape. In the process, he is losing some of his civil rights. That is happening every day.
When this bill passes the House and when these regulations are put together, somebody is going to be hurt by the regulations. At the very least, someone is going to find himself all snarled up in bureaucratic regulations. The very reasonable amendment moved by my colleague will give parliament the right to call these regulations back before the House, if we deem it necessary, so that we can examine them in the light of the bill to ensure that the regulations do not in fact exceed the authority given to the government by the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont on a point of order.

May 12, 1978
Children's Rights


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would allow me a question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to put a question to the hon. member because he referred to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. Does he not feel that precisely because the committee is empowered to examine such regulations as concern it and, because it reports periodically to the House, the latter does have the power to scrutinize the regulations the minister may introduce eventually in order to check and see that they respect the act authorizing them?


James Aloysius McGrath: I thank the hon. member for that question, Mr. Speaker. Certainly he has a point. However, I remind him that just a few days ago the House unanimously supported a recommendation or a report of the statutory instruments committee where it found that the government had in fact exceeded its authority under the Post Office Act and arbitrarily increased postal rates. The government completely ignored that committee recommendation. What can we expect from a government that virtually ignores the workings of this most important committee of the House? Consequently, we feel that this amendment is vital if the rights of parliament are going to be protected.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills. [Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think there is unanimous consent for proceeding with Bill C-243 and, consequently, that preceding bills be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House has heard the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


James Aloysius McGrath: that Bill C-243, respecting a Canadian Bill of Rights for Children, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1979 will mark the twentieth anniversary of the signing by Canada and the passing by the General Assembly of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, a declaration that was adopted by the General Assembly on November 20, 1959. Perhaps it might be appropriate if I were to cite part of that very important declaration to which Canada is a signatory. I quote Principle 2:
The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually, and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of law for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount considerations.
As I have stated, that was adopted by the United Nations. It was signed and ratified by Canada approximately 19 years ago. Up to now, our laws have reflected the belief that a child's interest can be served best within the traditional family unit. That belief is now being questioned by increasing numbers of parents, educators and hopefully politicians, as they face the serious problems of the child in today's society.
There are a number of areas which I could cover to define what I believe to be the rights of Canadian children, and the need to have these rights defined by law. Let us take a look at poverty and malnutrition. Who would think, in this great land of plenty, that poverty and malnutrition would be a problem? Statistics Canada defines poverty as a state where more than 62 per cent of family income is required to provide the minimum necessities of food, shelter and clothing. The National Council of Welfare report entitled, "Poor Kids" is dated March 1975. I commend that excellent publication to the House. It indicates that according to the 1971 census, 1.65 million of the total 6.76 million children, or 24.5 per cent, were classified as below the poverty line. The census found substantial numbers of children living in poverty in every province. I am sad to say the highest proportion was in my own province of Newfoundland where almost half the province's children, 45.3 per cent, were in families with incomes below the poverty line. But even in rich provinces, the so-called "have " provinces of Ontario and British Columbia, more than one child in six came under the definition of poverty.
It is interesting to read through this publication to understand what poverty means to a child. It is a very moving document. I should like to read from one letter written by a poor child in New Brunswick. It reads as follows:
My name is Pierre and I'm 13 years old. I'm the eldest of seven children. What makes me suffer most is not having a house, having to live in a shack where it's always cold and too small for all the family. There are nine of us. The seven children all sleep together in two 36-inch wide beds-pushed together in winter for more heat since we don't have enough blankets. We have an old broken-down stove. In the winter we push the beds near the stove, but it's dangerous.
The letter goes on. In fact, this publication contains a number of similar letters reflecting the plight of poor children in this country who lack the basic necessities of shelter, clothing, and an adequate diet. Lack of nutrition is not necessarily a problem confined to the poor. It has become a problem of nationwide proportion, thanks to the fact that we have many
May 12, 1978

families in which both parents work and their children go to school without adequate breakfasts, and these children have to make do for the day with lunches of junk foods.
What are the consequences of poor nutritional standards? The ramifications are serious. Poor nutrition will lead to poor general health and a lower resistance to infection, thereby increasing the likelihood of sickness. Children who are suffering from poor general health are likely to be less alert and attentive in school; since they have less resistance to sickness, they are likely to miss days from school because of illness. Moreover, the results of poor nutrition form a vicious circle. For example, if young girls continue to have poor eating habits when they are adults, the effects of these habits are usually passed on to the next generation. Researchers have found that the physical and mental development of a child is affected by the adequacy of the mother's diet during pregnancy. This is a serious problem. We know that poor nutritional habits affect a child's mental health, physical health, as well as its learning ability.
I should like to turn to the area of child abuse. Who among us was not deeply moved by the very tragic death in the city of Ottawa last winter of little five-year-old Adrienne Paquette? The evidence showed that the Children's Aid Society returned Adrienne to her 32-year-old mother, despite overwhelming evidence indicating that this little girl had been abused and battered over the years since she was a baby. She was found dead from suffocation in the basement of the family home, with her hands tied behind her back in such a way as to force her to stand on one foot, with a gag in her mouth and a pillowcase over her head. If young Adrienne had been treated with dignity and respect as a human being, instead of as a chattel of her parents and a chattel of the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa, she might be alive today.
If we had a society which was prepared to recognize the fundamental rights of children as human beings, then Adrienne would have had an advocate to speak for her before the courts. But there was no such advocate. There was no one to speak on behalf of little Adrienne and she is dead. That is what my bill is all about. It is designed to protect the Adriennes of this country from child abuse, from irresponsible parents and irresponsible organizations which act as surrogate parents, whether it be the province or someone delegated by the province, such as the Children's Aid Society.
The House has the benefit of the recent report on child abuse and neglect. Again this was a private member's motion brought before the House. It was allowed to go to committee, and the committee came forward with an excellent study. It is difficult to know the exact incidence of child abuse in Canada because of the variations in definitions or in reporting systems. However, Dr. H. B. Cotnam, Chief Coroner of Ontario, stated that a fairly reasonable assessment can be made from United States studies which indicate a range from 225 to 350 cases per million population per year respectively. That is a substantial number.
Using this criterion, the number of cases in Canada, which has an approximate population of 22 million, would range
Children's Rights
from 4,950 to 7,700 cases. At the present time, approximately 25 per cent of the cases occurring in a province like Ontario are being reported. That is the tragedy of it. The majority of these cases are never reported. They never get to court. Like little Adrienne, for these children it is probably too late. In 1977, the Ontario Children's Aid Society reported 1,045 cases of child abuse. In addition, child abuse was held responsible for 13 deaths in the province. How many other little children have died as a result of child abuse? There is growing evidence that this is a serious social problem in our society. It is a crime which is committed but almost never reported.
So far only the battered child syndrome has been discussed, but the appropriate standing committee of this House also found that physical abuse is the extreme end of the continuum of child neglect, and that there is no firm dividing line between neglect and abuse. Child neglect covers a wide range of situations, including situations where parents are unable or unwilling to care for the child adequately. We all know of cases. I suppose there is not a member of this House who has not had direct experience in dealing with a constituent when he knows there is child neglect. You find it in any of the middle or upper middle class neighbourhoods in this affluent city.
Surely it is child neglect if both parents leave at eight o'clock in the morning without taking any care to ensure that their children are provided with an adequate and nutritious breakfast, the most important meal of the day. Surely it is child neglect when those parents do not bother to check on their children during the day and these children have to fill up on junk food, such as soda pop and potato chips and all the things they eat during the day. We know that kind of inadequate diet makes for an aggressive child, makes for a difficult child and makes for a child who has difficulty in learning.
It is not without interest that we note the growth in the rate of child suicides. This shocks us all but we have to talk about these things. Children as young as five years of age are taking their own lives. This is a serious problem. There is not a day that goes by in the city of Toronto when there are not ten reported cases of attempted child or teenage suicide, and unfortunately there are often deaths.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has noted that as of June, 1975 there were approximately
68,000	children in the care of child welfare authorities in Canada as a result of neglect. These are the surrogate parents and many of them are not equipped either by training or any other criterion to be responsible surrogate parents of these children. Aside from the children removed from their homes, child welfare authorities are working with over 42,000 families involving approximately 96,000 children in order to protect the children from neglect by attempting to correct or mitigate the potential or actual situation in the home.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how far we have come from eighteenth century England when that famous English lawyer, William Blackstone, identified three duties which parents owe

May 12, 1978
Children's Rights
their children? He identified the duty to maintain, the duty to protect and the duty to educate. How far have we come since that famous jurist defined those parental responsibilities? We still treat children today as chattels. Children are in the same position today that women were in twenty-five years ago, when the female spouse was considered the property of her husband. That was the case in most of the provinces in this country, and she could be subject to beating or any other kind of abuse without any recourse to law. We have changed and corrected that situation, but we have not bothered to examine the problem of the young Adriennes of this country.
I address this question in the form of television advertising. We abuse children by what we do to them on television; by taking advantage of their young imaginative minds and using them as surrogates to sell junk foods or toys that do not work. We confuse them by advertising products and telling them that if they want to be members of the "in" group of young teenagers they have to drink "X" brand of beer. By the very sophisticated use of peer group advertising we are taking our children and turning them into alcoholics before they even reach the age of majority. We are confusing them and turning them into cynics.
We have addressed that problem by reference to a standing committee of the House of a bill I introduced. We made recommendations to the House, and the House concurred in the recommendations that this form of advertising should be eliminated in Canada. Those recommendations were ignored by the CRTC and the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve). That was three or four years ago and today the Federal Trade Commission in the United States is getting around to banning that kind of advertising. At least they have recognized this is a serious problem and are now holding public hearings which will lead to the serious curtailment, if not the total prohibition, of this kind of abuse of children which we condone in this supposedly modern and enlightened society of ours.
We could talk about venereal disease which is a growing problem. We could talk about the problems of the urbanization of our country and what that means to a child. Stop and think for a moment. Most of us in this House when we were growing up were part of an extended family that included not only our parents but also our grandparents, maternal and paternal, as well as aunts and uncles, the neighbourhood church, the neighbourhood school, all of which provided an umbrella of protection in the small towns and villages of rural Canada.
Look what is happening today in the megalopoli of this country. The extended family no longer exists. The neighbourhood pastor is gone. The grandparents are no longer there. The children are lost in this large urban society and no longer have that protection children once enjoyed. They are now very much alone, and require the attention of society to afford them a degree of protection.
Traditionally parents have had almost total control over their children. But, at the same time, as I have said, that control was exercised in the framework of a supportive net-

work; a network which held the parent accountable for the way in which he raised the child. Lifestyles are changing and traditional family life has been altered. The movement of large groups of people from rural to urban areas, the increasing size of metropolitan areas and even the type of work one does are all factors which contribute to the changing lifestyle. No longer is there a majority of families living in a close-knit kinship group with numerous relatives nearby to offer a helping hand. Often families live several hundred miles from their relatives. Frequent moves because of job requirements also discourage close attachments to a particular community.
Other aspects of family life are also changing. With the increasing number of divorces and separations and with the tendency of unwed mothers to keep their children-and I support that situation-there are more families in which there is only one parent to shoulder the burden. In addition, more women are entering into the labour force, either by right or through necessity because of inflation, and remaining in it even when they have very young children; and that leads to the problem of providing adequate daycare centres which this country has not yet addressed. The Minister of National Health and Welfare should address herself to the matter of providing funding for good daycare centres, because there is greater reliance on this form of supervision and care.
Because of these changes and others, parents are confronted with a difficult and confusing task. No longer are parents confident that they know exactly how to raise a child, for the world is increasingly different from the one in which they grew up. Lacking the traditional basis of familial support and living in a society increasingly characterized by permissiveness and alienation, parents face a complex assignment. Needless to say, some parents are unable to cope with the pressures.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that you are about to indicate that my time has expired. I wonder if the House would allow me the indulgence of carrying on?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member should continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: I will try not to take up the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, but I feel that the subject is important enough to have the case adequately presented. We are talking about whether or not parents are able to cope with the pressures of modern society, and we must ask if society is doing enough to assist parents in their job. What is the responsibility of society to ensure that every child has a chance to enjoy the benefits which society can provide? These include a healthy life, an opportunity for a good education, a chance for a meaningful career and the opportunity to work.
What can society do to protect the right of a child? Basically, society can take two approaches. First of all, my legal friends would appreciate the negative approach, which we now take, in which offenders are punished; and there is the positive approach in which respect for children's rights are encouraged. It is that positive approach that my bill speaks to.
May 12, 1978

At the present time the federal government, through the enactment of the Criminal Code, has followed the first approach in that parents or guardians are punished if they neglect or harm children under their care. Under the Criminal Code, parents or guardians can be charged for such offences as using undue force as a method of discipline-sections 26 and 43; for endangering the morals of the child-section 168; for failing to provide the necessities of life-section 197; and for exposing a child so that its life is endangered, likely to be endangered, its health injured or likely to be permanently injured-section 200. These laws help to protect the rights of the child by punishment through criminal proceedings. We have more amendments to the Criminal Code before the House now whereby it will become a punishable offence to exploit children sexually, through pornography or through the use of children to produce this kind of offensive material.
Negative sanctions can only be used when some infraction has occurred. Usually, as in the case of Adrienne, it is too late, because even if the child is saved all too often it is marked mentally for life. A preferable way to protect the rights of a child is by making sure that certain provisions are in place so that these infractions do not take place. It is therefore essential to place firmly in the minds of the public the idea of children's rights.
I do not mean giving Johnny and Jane the right to ridiculous things, like the right to vote. That is not what children's rights are about. Children's rights are what the UN declaration talked about in 1959. Many people are puzzled and bewildered by the concept of children's rights. I submit it is the task of legislators in Canada, and especially in this House, to provide leadership. It is an idea whose time has come and is absolutely essential. A child is an individual with certain basic rights and freedoms. Canada must take steps to show that the value and importance of the family and children are fundamental aspects of the future development of this country.
The last time this House addressed itself to laws affecting children in a serious way was in 1885. We passed laws in parliament patterned after those in Great Britain and the United States to protect children from exploitation in the labour market. For the first time children were recognized as citizens. The time has come for us as a nation to recognize in law that children have rights. I refer to the 1959 declaration of the United Nations. It is time that we as a nation started to live up to our commitments as a signatory to that declaration of 1959. I can think of no better time to start than now, 20 years later, as we approach 1979, a year that has been designated by the UN as the year of the child.
We have yet to hear anything from the government on how they propose, as a signatory to the UN declaration of 1959, to mark the year of the child. What better way for us to discharge our responsibilities under that declaration and to show the world we care about our children than for our government to provide for some kind of a forum where the provinces, which have the majority of the responsibility in this regard because of the constitutional provision regarding property and civil rights, are brought together to at least ensure
Children's Rights
that across this land-in a child custody case or in the case of a battered child or in the case of malnutrition-the child will have an advocate before the law to make sure its rights are protected. Let us make sure there are no more Adriennes.


Mr. Marke Raines (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to look over Bill C-243 as proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and I wish to say that I am in favour of this bill and that I hope it will not be talked out at five o'clock.
The rights of children have been and are blatantly abused. I would like to share with the House an unforgettable incident which I witnessed more than ten years ago in British Columbia and which I cannot forget. At that time I was in a different role; I was a reporter and not a member of parliament. I was covering what I thought at the time was a story, as I still do. It was the case of four children all of whom were of pre-school age in British Columbia.
When I arrived on the scene in this home in the greater Vancouver area I came upon a father lounging in an armchair, a relatively young social worker about 30 years of age, and four children. My first question was, "Well, what is going to happen to these four children? The mother has left the house, where will they go?" I was told by the social worker, "Oh, we will find a home for them, a home here or there or somewhere but hopefully in British Columbia, but perhaps elsewhere, we are not sure." My response was, "Well, surely you can keep these children together and find a home for them?" The social worker replied, "Oh, no, that is too difficult in our society, you know; it is rather difficult to find a home that will take four children so we will scatter them around." My reaction at the time was, "Well, even puppies get better treatment, or the same treatment at least."
So there are no rights for children, and these children were no doubt handed around to various homes. Under our present system of doing things children have no rights later on if they want to know who their natural parents or brothers and sisters were. They are told that that is a bureaucratic secret. This is not right. Even as children they should have the right to know, and surely there should be no question when they are adults.
A task force should be set up to look into situations like these. Another such situation is the splitting up of a family. In countless cases today, in child welfare cases as well as custody cases, the children should be represented by somebody, perhaps a lawyer in this case. We should get away from the concept of various Children's Aid Societies and other groups we now have institutionalizing humanity. Their aim should be to bring the family together, not to act as a broker in breaking the family up.
I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for St. John's East in proposing this legislation, particularly as it concerns television program advertising that exploits children. This too should come under the bill and be looked into by a task force.
I do not want to take up the time of the House in outlining what the task force should encompass, but I believe that since
5394

May 12, 1978
Children's Rights
the rights of the child are far reaching, it should be composed of federal and provincial representatives that might consider the rights of children as proposed in this bill, such as their right to a proper education-although I appreciate the fact that education is still considered a provincial matter. The right of a child to a proper education in the seventies might include not only the opportunity or privilege to learn the other language but the absolute right to learn the other language. What is a proper education so far as children are concerned in the seventies in Canada?
If the task force is set up I hope it will take into account that the right of a child in British Columbia is to have one hour of French in school every day beginning in grade 2 or 3. I include Quebec in that; perhaps their right should be to have an hour or two of English every day. Aside from what rights bureaucrats think children should have, and aside from federal provincial jurisdictions we are speaking of the rights of children to travel from one province to another and to be able to speak both official languages. That too should be the right of children.
I know that the hon. member for St. John's East has taken into account the ten provinces and two territories and the complex jurisdictions relating to the designation and enforcement of rights of children in the various provinces. I say this is all the more reason we should set up a task force comprised of both federal and provincial representatives to enforce the rights of children across Canada.
I submit we need uniform legislation by virtue of a task force. I would disagree on only one point. Clause 4 of the bill reads as follows:
Such officers and employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the work of the task force may be selected-
In other words, we wish to select the task force. It continues:
-from among the public service of Canada and from among the public service of the provinces.
I would suggest that this task force be drawn from a broader spectrum of society such as is represented in the House of Commons. I should like to see lawyers, journalists, unionists, ministers, homemakers-people who, with all due respect, would not have a bureaucratic mind. The bureaucratic mind is worth while in some cases, but not in this case. I suggest it was the bureaucratic mind that ten years ago said: "Here we have poor little children so let us scatter them out like little puppy dogs or litters of kittens." I think we could enlarge the area from which members of the task force could be drawn.
I appreciate the fact that on December 21, 1976, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution declaring 1979 the International Year of the Child. That is all well and good, Mr. Speaker. A poster is fine, but what we need is a task force to go across the country making sure that children have their rights in the 1970s.
I hope the bill proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East will reach the committee stage and that we will soon have a task force bring in a report.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) not only on this bill but I should also like to congratulate him on some other initiatives he has taken in the past. I think it is particularly important that we note the work he did with regard to children's advertising. I think that was one of the most effective contributions that a single member has ever made to this House, and I for one would like to congratulate him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am not going into that here. We know, however, that psychopathic behaviour can be diagnosed very early in life. If we do not start diagnosing it early we will not solve that behaviour through the criminal justice system. We have not been able to in the past, and we will not in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: These problems must be solved early. It is no good putting children in jail. Their behaviour should be examined and treated early and we should have the resources for such treatment. We must understand that a child has a right to be educated and that a child who is disabled has a right to be educated or treated. That includes a child with a psychopathic disorder.
We hear talk about the extended family and I think the hon. member for St. John's East has put his finger on the major problem in society. Uncles, aunts and cousins today are gone. That family group pressure was upon the parent to treat that child well, otherwise grandmother would come over to take the child away. That pressure is no longer there. We have replaced it with nothing. We have replaced it with the faceless bureaucracy that tries to solve the problem. The only way to solve it is with a bill of rights for children so children have rights and the doctor will not be worried about protecting the parents of a battered child. The refusal to report suspicious incidents of battered children is a national tragedy and is a situation occurring across Canada. We need to change the law and in order to do that we need to study that law.
I began my remarks by congratulating the hon. member for St. John's East, but I want to take issue with him on one point which he made. It was probably an offhand remark and it concerned the question of unwed mothers and children of unwed mothers. I happen to think that that child also has rights. If the wrong parent is the unwed mother, that child should not be routinely raised by the unwed mother. The rights of that child should be paramount, and what is best for that child must prevail.
Perhaps it is wrong in many circumstances for an unwed mother to say "I must cling to my child. After all, I have been through a tragedy and all I have out of this tragedy is my child". If that is the wrong thing for the child, I for one do not think we should have an unbending rule that says that that unwed mother should raise the child. Quite often an adopting family provides a far better atmosphere in which to bring up that child. Perhaps that is the only thing the hon. member and I have a disagreement about. He may have simply been expressing a preference in an individual case.
As I have said, I do not want to see this bill talked out. In order that that will not happen I would hope the House would now support the following motion which I propose. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
Children's Rights
That Bill C-243, an act respecting a Canadian Bill of Rights for Children, be not now read a second time, but that the order be discharged and the subject matter of the said bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I put this motion, Mr. Speaker, realizing there may be some reluctance to accept an opposition member's bill by the committee. Surely the subject matter is well worth the study. Certainly the precedent has been well set in terms of the bill which dealt with the subject of pornography as well as the bill which dealt with the subject of the abuse of children in the way of television advertising. I would hope the House would support this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is moved by Mr. Leggatt, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), that Bill C-243, an act respecting a Canadian Bill of Rights for Children, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged and the subject matter of the said bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure members on the other side would not want to deny me an opportunity to say a few words-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Take five minutes.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would not want to gag me in this House when I have some things I want to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I have not had previous notice of the amendment. It does seem to me that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is about to have a number of very serious matters put before it. Before an amendment like this is adopted routinely there should be some consideration of what kind of attention the committee is prepared to give such a motion in the near future.
I want to commend the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who introduced the motion. I have commended him on other occasions for the work he has done in the area of care for children. I am aware of his concern. He sets a very good example to members of the House in his own family life.
Without question his concern is a very real one. The cause which he has undertaken is one that will take a good deal of time, not only in this parliament but in subsequent parliaments. There is no easy resolution within our federal-provincial constitutional framework of the very complex matters raised. There is a very limited jurisdiction on the part of the federal authority as the hon. member would recognize; he is a lawyer and I am not.
When I listen to hon. members' stories about incidents of child abuse that live in their memories, there is one which will live with me as long as I am still rational and in possession of my faculties. When I was elected a member of the Ottawa city council in 1958 I was a new member of council and I had some
80038-5 iVi

May 12, 1978
Children's Rights
knowledge of what a member of council could do, but 1 had very limited knowledge in the area of family care. I received a complaint about a family living in a converted summer cottage in Britannia. The complaint came from a neighbour and it concerned a sick child. This incident happened over the Christmas period. I called at the cottage and a woman answered the door. I identified myself, and with the greatest reluctance she allowed me to come in. When I asked her if she had a sick baby she told me that she had a baby with a cold but it was really none of my business. I noticed there was a broken window which was covered by a piece of cardboard. There was a baby in a crib not too many feet away from that window. I asked her if a doctor had seen the baby and she said no. I suspected the family might have been on welfare and I started to make a discreet inquiry. I discovered that her husband was employed and there was a regular income in the family. I was told in the bluntest terms that the matter of her child's cold was none of my business. The child was dead two days later.
Looking back, I have no knowledge even to this day what kind of action was available to a member of city council to intervene in a situation where there was gross neglect and abuse by a parent who was not competent to look after a child.
I listened to the hon. member of the NDP who said he was persuaded that not every unwed mother should have the right to raise her child. The simple truth is-and it is with the greatest reluctance that I say this-that the incident which will always stand out in my memory was that of an unfit mother and father with the responsibility of a child.
The truth is that our law is complex. Historically the common law gave no rights to the child. The father presumably had wide and extensive control over his children and he had very little by way of civil obligation imposed upon him. I understand that in this century jurisprudence has developed, but it is almost entirely at the provincial level and a very limited amount is at the federal level. The concept of the rights of a child is something very fundamental.
I have one or two comments about the bill before us. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines) has said that if we are to set up a task force we must expect ten provinces to enact legislation. It does seem to me that an inadequate amount of provincial representation is suggested by the hon. member in this bill. Furthermore, I am a little bit at a loss concerning clause 6, which 1 now quote:
Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring an appropriation of any part of the public revenue.
How will the task force operate? Will it hold hearings or will it be entirely conducted by volunteers? I would personally find that a very impractical way of conducting-


An hon. Member:: No choice.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member says that he has a bill that would be out of order if there was a charge to treasury. In order to meet the rules of the House he puts a totally impractical consideration into the bill. He had the alternative of drafting a general resolution rather than a bill. However, that

is really inconsequential. The general intent of what the hon. member is trying to do is highly desirable.
I said I am not a lawyer, but in the reading I have done and as a result of the limited number of situations which I have had to face, it seems to me that the balance between the rights of a family and the rights of a child is not easily established. It is possible to lean too far and to set up a situation where a manipulative child in later years could take advantage of and harass parents, especially when property settlements and such matters are considered.
I became familiar only recently with a situation where a marital breakdown is taking place, and it is almost certain that at the earliest opportunity one parent will attempt to deprive the other of access rights guaranteed by an agreement. I was shocked to learn from the lawyer who is giving advice that the most effective thing to do was to kidnap first. The possibility of the other parent performing in good faith is minimal, and the parent who is most reponsible in terms of the custody of the child does not have complete legal right, nor is there any means under present legislation by which such a right could be accorded.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs already has a lot of work to do, which is another consideration when it comes to proposing that yet a further burden be added to its program. I would remind the House that Bill C-51 was introduced on May 1 to amend section 250 of the Criminal Code and create the offence of abducting a child in circumstances not now covered by law, such as in contravention of a custody order by a Canadian court or, in special circumstances, where no order has been made but the child is taken with the intent to deprive a parent or guardian of possession. The whole subject is a complex one.
The task force will not find its work easy and I look forward to several debates on the subject in the House of Commons. A great many people are exercised over the seal hunt. We see a hundred times more attention given that matter in the House and outside than is given to the rights of battered or abused children. There is nothing wrong about having more debates on this subject. I do not think we shall achieve our purpose by limiting discussion on a subject which is not urgent today but will become increasingly urgent in the years ahead. I am not a lawyer but I have learned from the experience of people very dear to me that when a marital breakdown takes place as many as four Ontario courts may become involved. As yet there is no unified jurisdiction to deal with these cases.
I am pleased to note that the creation of unified family courts has been encouraged by federal funding. A fund has been established by the government to finance special projects in various provinces. I understand that the Law Reform Commission in its 1974 working paper on family courts recommended the establishment of such a fund. Pilot projects have been put into operation in British Columbia in respect of which the Department of Justice and the province are sharing the cost. There is a project in the Richmond-Surrey-Deita
May 12, 1978

region. I understand that evaluation of the project is due to take place shortly and those of us who have taken an interest in these matters will be following it closely. I am told that a unified family court pilot project has been established in Hamilton, Ontario.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Time is running out!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am sure the hon. member is just as anxious as I am to have a good debate on this subject. I think the debate so far has been inadequate. It is a debate which should be repeated on more than one occasion.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Why not send the subject to the committee where it could be discussed at length?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The justice committee already has a number of matters to consider.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We are both on that committee. We shall accept the work.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I think the idea of unified family courts has a great deal to contribute to the subject before us. It relates to the whole question of what should be done to deal with marital problems arising out of child abuse, a subject which will be a recurring theme in this parliament and in parliaments to come. What I have tried to do is-


An hon. Member:: Talk the bill out.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: -draw attention to certain problems with which 1 have become acquainted as a member of parliament in this area involving child abduction, the kind of settlement which takes place when more than one court is involved in the case of marital breakdown, and the delicate question of the evolution of a law which respects a balance between the rights of the child and the rights of the family. Those who are
Children's Rights
concerned about this subject must be aware that it will have to be debated a number of times-


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock!


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the bill has received unanimous approval perhaps you would undertake not to see the clock in order that Your Honour might put the amendment in the name of my hon. friend. In that way wfc can get the bill before the committee for consideration in depth along the lines the hon. member for Ottawa West has suggested.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have another member who has an excellent speech to deliver on the matter but that would last until much too late. We will have other occasions to deal with this issue. The committees are already quite busy. Besides, the Progressive Conservative party complained today that they wanted to deal with the estimates in committee. They will now have this opportunity, but obviously they could not discuss this bill in committee if we agreed to the hon. member's request. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, if I continue to speak it is to give my colleagues opposite the chance to shout, which will probably relieve them, but we cannot accept their request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. Apparently there is not unanimous consent. The time provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 2(1), this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5.02 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 15, 1978