1978-01-31

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the federal-provincial conference of industry, trade and commerce ministers held yesterday determined that 30,000 of the 80,000 jobs lost in Canada during the past 13 months were in Quebec; since most of those 30,000 jobs are in the footwear, textile, furniture, clothing and paper industries which are important industries in the Quebec and Canadian economies; since the federal tariff policy on imports and the lack of satisfactory safeguards are to a great extent responsible for that disastrous situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath);
That the House unanimously urge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) to convene the authorities of those industrial sectors and immediately set them up with a very special strategy to put an end to so many shutdowns and job losses.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTION FLOOR PRICE OF DOMESTIC MILLING WHEAT BE RAISED-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since the 30-cent increase in the floor price for domestic wheat announced last week is much less than half of the deficit between the old price and farmers'
cost of production, and since farm incomes on the prairies are expected to remain below 1973-74 levels, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent);
That this House instruct the minister responsible for the Wheat Board to immediately raise the floor price for domestic milling wheat to a level that pays farmers their full cost of production.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the unanimous consent of the House is required before such a motion can come before it for discussion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since 25 per cent of milk producers will not have any revenues until the end of the dairy year because their quotas have expired and since milk producers must now pay all year long $1.35 for every hundredweight of industrial milk for the storage of powdered milk, which is a very substantial sum when we consider the financial hardship that these people are experiencing, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to call immediately for a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture to take an in-depth look at the dairy policy in Canada, a policy that proved disastrous for milk producers in general, so that steps can be taken as soon as possible in order that the dairy year correspond to the calendar year, a step which would have the effect of allowing milk producers to better manage their production volume.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

January 31, 1978
5.0.	43



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the importance of Canadian airlines to this nation's economy, and the manipulative and interventionist tendencies sometimes exhibited by some officials in the Ministry of Transport without meaningful consultations with the industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the Minister of Transport advise the House of the reasons which have motivated his ministry, and in particular Mr. Walter McLeish, to actively pursue the sensitive matter of the institution of a system of electronic or constant performance monitoring in Canadian aircraft, with apparently little or no consultation with CALPA, and whether or not such an Orwellian system presently exists in any other country?


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



RADON RADIATION-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO SAFEGUARD THOSE AFFECTED-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the findings of a survey carried out by the Department of National Health and Welfare indicating that over 6,000 households in Canada registered ascertainable levels of radon radiation in population centres as widespread as Calgary, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, Fredericton and St. John's, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham (Mr. Lawrence):
That this government notify immediately those persons affected and the affected provincial governments and municipalities so that appropriate action can be taken without delay to safeguard the health of those endangered by this radiation.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



FINANCE


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the intense regional antagonism that is developing over the anti-dumping tribunal decision to uphold the Algoma appeal for the imposition of a 30 per cent dumping duty on wide-flange steel beams entered through the port of Vancouver, and in view of the fact that Canadian National Railways, Canadian Pacific Railway and Algoma Central Railways have announced a further increase of 5 per cent on steel rail freight rates from Ontario commencing April 1, 1978, at the expense of western Canada, thus exhibiting an indifference and a failure to adjust the system to allow regional resource-based industries to exist, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That the government of Canada invoke section 7 of the Anti-dumping Act exempting wide-flange steel beams 25 inches and less from the act when imported through the port of Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering the necessity of removing all illegal and unfair practices which have been introduced into the administration of justice; considering the explicit recognition of irregular, illicit and shameful acts committed by the RCMP; considering the spiteful allegation of irresponsibility made by the Solicitor General against those who have unveiled some abominable acts of the RCMP while he himself, again on January 9 last, did reveal another as unbelievable an operation by that police force as that of having issued a communique in the name of the FLQ in 1971; considering that all those facts revealed bit by bit seem to cover acts and circumstances much more serious; and considering that the refusal of the Solicitor General to co-operate with the Keable Commission reflects the bad faith of the federal government, because the McDonald Commission seems rather to act as the attorney of the minister and the RCMP and hence does not obtain public support, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That a special committee of the House representing all political parties be authorized to set up an objective, non-partisan and exhaustive inquiry into the actions of the RCMP, and of those who have authority over it, concerning
January 31, 1978

individuals, groups and political parties that have worked and are still working for the sovereignty of Quebec.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF QUEBEC

Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the oral question period, may I call attention to the presence, this afternoon in our gallery of special guests in the person of the President of the National Assembly of the province of Quebec, Mr. Clement Richard, and his colleagues who want to examine television facilities in the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF GENERAL JAMES E. HILL

Mr. Speaker:: I would also call attention to the presence in our gallery of the Commander in Chief of the North American Air Defence Command, NORAD, General James E. Hill. He is accompanied by our Canadian Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral Falls.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can he tell the House of Commons when he will be naming a new solicitor general?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to make that appointment later this week. In the meantime, of the proponents, the Minister of Justice will continue to act as acting solicitor general.
Oral Questions


CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING RESIGNATION OF SOLICITOR GENERAL
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister tell the House when he first became aware of the circumstances involving-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mrs. Holt:: You have no class, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: a possible breach of the law which led to the resignation of the solicitor general?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I first learned of it on Wednesday, January 18, some nine days before the minister resigned. The facts were made known to me in a letter sent to me through my principal secretary by a private citizen.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question refers to the standards of the government generally. Could the Prime Minister tell us, in this particular circumstance where an event which apparently occurred before the appointment to cabinet of the member involved and which, when it became known, led to the resignation of that member from cabinet, how the standards and the screening of the Prime Minister failed to make him aware of this circumstance prior to the appointment of this member of parliament to a very sensitive position in cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, before making an order in council appointment of any sensitive nature, I always ask for a screening from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I ask them if they have any files or allegations which might cause me to ask the proposed appointee any questions and discuss with him why I should or should not appoint him. This procedure was followed in the case of the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, as with other ministers. There was absolutely no reason why I should not proceed with the appointment of the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes. When I appointed him, he did not raise these facts with me. As I learned later, he considered these facts to be private, personal matters and did not feel that the implications were such that he should not join the cabinet.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister advise the House whether he is considering changing either the standards which he applies, or the screening procedures which are followed in circumstances of this kind?


Simma Holt: Look behind you, Joe.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. When I appoint a person to cabinet or, indeed, to other high offices, I have a screening procedure to make sure there is no illegality in the past. Usually, I discuss with the person the role of the office I am going to give him and ascertain that he is going to conduct himself honourably.

January 31, 1978
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman a question about what I believe-and I believe many would agree with me-is an unprecedented situation in the administration of justice in this country. With three former solicitors general now not available for questioning in accordance with parliamentary rules, with three judicial inquiries going on respecting the business of the department, and with important legislation pending which is also affecting the portfolio, will the Prime Minister fill this ministerial and parliamentary vacuum by devoting his personal attention to some of these matters, and will he perhaps elaborate later on motions what he plans to do to make certain that the administration of justice in this country does not fail the confidence of the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have appointed a royal commission of inquiry to look into allegations of possible improprieties or illegalities committed by representatives of the Canadian government in the administration of justice. We expect this commission of inquiry to search into every relevant aspect of the question. I believe that this is the proper procedure to ensure that the examination of these facts and allegations is not in the hands of the government but, rather, is in the hands of a royal commission of inquiry.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister that he cannot, in all conscience, delegate all the responsibilities implicit in this House to a royal commission, however eminent. I should like to ask him, by way of a final supplementary question, whether, as a man of the law, he is not concerned about the provisions of section 41(2) which have played such an important role in the deliberations of royal commissions looking into some of these aspects. This section, as the Prime Minister knows, sanctions executive privilege without judicial review. I am wondering if the Prime Minister recognizes this fact and is prepared to take steps to change it, particularly in view of the less than positive assurances yesterday of the Minister of Justice that some of the material withheld under the section, without benefit of judicial review, may not necessarily have been in the personal purview and knowledge of the minister who withheld the material.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Without at all agreeing with the interpretation given by the hon. member of the words of the Minister of Justice, I would say that the practice incorporated in the law is in keeping with traditional parliamentary practices. In our system, the executive is responsible for making executive decisions regarding the secrecy that is needed for the protection and security of the state. This, of the proponents, can be questioned: it is the opposition's role to ask questions, if they wish.


An hon. Member:: Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister.
[Mr. Trudeau.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: For greater certainty, we have referred this whole matter to the royal commission to see if they can suggest any ways of improving the present practices. I, for one, believe they are completely in keeping with the traditions of parliament.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister, in the Solicitor General's absence, why the government denied the Keable inquiry access to the telex which RCMP Superintendent Nowlan sent from Ottawa to Montreal authorizing the illegal break-in which took place on January 9, 1973, to obtain information about the Parti Quebe-cois. Yesterday the Prime Minister said he would ensure that the Solicitor General answered the question. We now know that is impossible. But I would like to follow up the spirit of the question and ask the Minister of Justice if he could inform the House why the Keable inquiry is denied access to this cable, which should have said simply "Yes" or "No" and, as we now have on the record, said "Yes". Will he now tell us why we cannot have access to that cable?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: It is, of the
proponents, an assumption that that is all the telegram said. I apologize to the leader of the NDP, but I have not had a chance to examine that particular question. I shall do so.
BREAK-IN AT PARTI QUTbECOIS OFFICES-RESPONSIBILITY OF FORCE TO REPORT TO SOLICITOR GENERAL


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It relates to a matter which I raised yesterday in the House. I asked the Prime Minister about Superintendent Nowlan's failure to inform the then solicitor general last June of the activity of the RCMP in obtaining information about the Parti Quebecois. In his answer in the House yesterday, the Prime Minister said, and I quote, "that there was no illegal or improper conduct on the part of RCMP officials". That is the opinion of the Prime Minister.
I would like the Prime Minister to think about that answer in the following context. Since the question pertains to Superintendent Nowlan's authorization of an illegal break-in a few years ago, on one hand, and on the other his responsibility to conduct an internal inquiry requested by the then solicitor general-he did not report last June to the solicitor general about his own activity and that of the RCMP-I ask the Prime Minister concretely whether he does not think there was a clear dereliction of responsibility on the part of Superintend-
January 31, 1978

ent Nowlan to report to the then solicitor general about this action.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer would depend on two questions which I hope will be determined by the McDonald commission. The first question is whether the taking of tapes from an office by the RCMP, provincial and municipal police forces, was an illegal act, and the second is whether it was thought to be an illegal act. If it was thought by the forces involved to be illegal, was it deliberately hidden from their superiors? This is what the McDonald commission is looking into.


John Edward Broadbent: We will not have the findings of that commission for two, or possibly three years. In the opinion of almost everyone concerned, the activity was clearly illegal and, if not that, at least improper. Since the internal inquiry which was set up by the minister last June was to look not only into illegal activities but also improper activities, does the Prime Minister not think he is being a little other than ingenuous when he says we have to wait until the royal commission makes a report at some time in the distant future, to get an answer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party himself indicates that he has doubt as to the illegality.


John Edward Broadbent: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: First he says that the act was clearly illegal, and then he says that if it was not illegal, it was at least improper. There is, obviously, doubt in the hon. member's mind.


John Edward Broadbent: It was one or the other.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was one or the other, in the opinion of the leader of the New Democratic Party. But if he himself has doubts as to illegality, I can assure him that it is possible the police also had doubts. They were conducting an inquiry. They had not, in their view, committed an illegal act; that is why it was not reported. When it was discovered by the minister and by the investigators later, they said it was something which should be looked into. That is why we referred the matter to the McDonald commission. The leader of the New Democratic Party says the McDonald commission may not report for two or three years. Indeed, we hope it will report long before that; but if it is seen that it will take a long time to report, we will insist on being given interim reports.
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, my question is directed to his parliamentary secretary.
As several dairy producers are now experiencing acute quota problems, and as most of them are being denied additional quotas, can the hon. member tell the House whether or not his government has thought or is thinking of soon revising the dairy policy with a view to improving the situation which has become almost unbearable for most Quebec dairy producers?


Mr. Yves Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the new dairy policy, I must say to the hon. member that it is now being studied by the management committee made up of provincial representatives and chaired by the chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission. The cabinet will therefore have to reach a decision in the very near future with regard to extending that dairy policy.


POWDERED MILK STOCKS-GOVERNMENT POLICY REGARDING DISPOSAL
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his generous reply. I should like to ask him in addition whether the committee has considered the problem of the storage of powdered milk which, in fact, is a big problem for the farmer as well as the government, because we all know the farmer has to pay SI.35 per hundredweight for storage. I was about to ask the hon. member whether they have considered the fact that powdered milk could be used advantageously by the producers provided, however, the price were the same as that for exports. This would have the double advantage of reducing the stocks of powdered milk and, as a consequence, of reducing storage costs.


Yves Caron: Mr. Speaker, I would still like to point out to the hon. member that, at the present time, there is no powdered milk in storage: all of it has been sold for the year 1977-78. On the other hand, I agree fully with his suggestions and they may become part of a new and good dairy policy for 1978-79.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear those words coming from the mouth of the hon. member but why wait to remove the quotas on milk when we are obliged to import milk from New Brunswick? The Rimouski Co-operative imported over two million pounds of milk from New Brunswick to meet the needs of its industries, while we have had to close down one of our cheese factories at Amqui for lack of milk. So, let the quotas be removed immediately!
2382

Oral Questions


Yves Caron: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that the dairy policy applies to all of Canada and that New Brunswick is part of Canada.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Solicitor General. It arises from his answer to my question yesterday wherein he undertook to determine if any of the documents which formed the subject matter of the September 15 affidavit sworn to by the then solicitor general referred to operation "Ham", the code name for the Parti Quebecois break-in.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member repeat the question?


William Herbert Jarvis: The question relates to the answer given to me yesterday by the Acting Solicitor General wherein he undertook to determine if any of the approximately 26 documents which formed the subject matter of the September 15, 1977, affidavit sworn to by the then solicitor general related to operation "Ham", the code name for the break-in to obtain confidential records of the Parti Quebecois.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am told that they were not. They were in code numbers that would not be recognized.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. I am sure the minister is aware that one of the bills before the United States congress is the Jackson-Din-gell bill which authorizes the President of the United States to enter into negotiations with Canada to seek a protocol to the U.S.-Canada pipeline transit treaty to include Kitimat, and that the President must report to congress by the end of July,
1978.	Was this matter discussed with the Vice-President of the United States when he was here earlier this month?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, this was not the subject of discussion at the meeting I attended, although it may have been with other colleagues on this side of the House.


Benno Friesen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In December, the United States vice president said in Seattle

that when he was senator for the state of Minnesota he approved of Kitimat as a major oil port site in Canada. When he was here, was he given any encouragement by cabinet that this question was under active consideration?


Roméo LeBlanc: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Acting Solicitor General. I wish to assure him that members of this party do not intend to ask questions with respect to the ongoing hostage-taking incidents in the Dorchester and British Columbia penitentiaries, since this might endanger the lives and safety of those involved. Would he take this opportunity to inform the House of the progress being made on implementation of the unanimous recommendations of the subcommittee on penitentiaries.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Solicitor General has asked me to answer questions relating to the Canadian penitentiaries service. I should like to assure the hon. member that the recommendations of the parliamentary subcommittee on penitentiaries are being implemented at a considerable rate of speed. The building program is part of the work being undertaken currently by the penitentiary service in order to allay some of the problems to which the hon. member may be referring.


KEABLE INQUIRY-MINISTER'S AFFIDAVIT RESPECTING DOCUMENTS NOT PROVIDED TO INQUIRY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the answer given by the Acting Solicitor General a few moments ago regarding inclusion in the documents referred to in the affidavit of the former solicitor general relating to the break-in by the security service to obtain confidential records of the Parti Quebecois. As I understood the minister's answer, he said these were referred to in those documents by code number, and not necessarily by reference, in English terminology or language terminology, to the break-in.
Bearing in mind that the affidavit sworn by the former solicitor general said he had personal knowledge of the facts deposed to in the affidavit and had examined those documents, could the Acting Solicitor General inform this House whether the former solicitor general had knowledge of the break-in operation as referred to in those documents?
January 31, 1978


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I was assured an hour and fifteen minutes ago that the former solicitor general did not have that knowledge.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Perhaps it is a question of knowledge or a question of understanding what someone is swearing to in a document. Can the Acting Solicitor General tell this House, as he is reporting to us now on this matter, whether his former colleague was swearing something in an affidavit which he actually had no knowledge of, even though he was swearing he did have knowledge of it?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, that is not what I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I wonder if the Acting Solicitor General can explain the very apparent contradiction in what he is now saying.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction between my answer yesterday and my answer today. There is no contradiction in what the former solicitor general has said, that he was not informed, prior to making a statement in the House, of the other illegal activities.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister inform the House what instructions have been sent to the Canadian delegation at the United Nations to raise the issue of runaway satellites before the committee on outer space in order to amend the present international treaty so that nuclear reactors will be banned in satellites which orbit the earth and pose a serious radiation hazard in the event of an accident which brings the satellite down in a heavily populated community?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is consulting with other governments presently as to the implications for future conduct as a result of this incident.


Douglas Roche: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With respect to financial liability for the Cosmos clean-up, can the minister confirm that the present treaty does not make it clear, legally, that the Soviet Union must bear financial responsibility for the extensive clean-up operation in Canada; and, if so, what steps is the government taking to have the Soviet Union pay the bill for this operation and to amend the treaty to clarify financial responsibility?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the assumption is that questions of compensation and liability have already been dealt with in convention or treaty. I believe that further concentrations are necessary in order to define more precisely how application can be made to the present incident.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ir6n£e Pelletier (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
The Radio-Mutuel dispute has now lasted for more than a year and the report by the mediator, appointed by the government last fall, has recently been made public. This report seems to point clearly to some anti-union allergy on the part of management. Could the minister tell the House whether in the shortest delay he intends to amend Bill C-8, a legislation which would allow the government to step rapidly in that dispute?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at various options, including legislation, as a means of resolving the dispute.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Acting Solicitor General. It concerns the Prime Minister's recent announcement that we can expect legislation in the House shortly to legalize mail opening by the RCMP or other police forces in Canada. Given the fact that the McDonald inquiry has a specific mandate, and in fact at the present time is looking into operation "Cathedral", can the Minister of Justice advise the House why it is necessary to prejudge the McDonald inquiry and bring legislation before this House before recommendations have been made with regard to this matter?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, because we have been advised by police and national security authorities that such legislation is necessary, it is the intention of the government to introduce short-term, interim legislation that will be dependent upon recommendations of the McDonald inquiry.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the police advising that the legislation is necessary, after illegal mail openings during the past 40 years. The facts with regard to
80031 -lOVi

January 31, 1978
Oral Questions
operation "Cathedral" are certainly known to the minister. I refer to the fact that illegal activity has taken place. Can the minister explain to the House why no charges have been laid? Why does the legal process not take its normal the proponents with regard to RCMP officers in the way it has to take its normal the proponents for the rest of the people?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, for the very simple reason that any facts or reports I have seen do not contain the precise type of information that is required in the laying of charges against specific officers or constables. That is one of the precise purposes of the hearings of the McDonald inquiry, to put before them facts with sufficient precision so that if charges can be laid, they will be laid.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Perhaps at this point the Minister of Justice can advise the House if the legislation that is being prepared will require judicial warrant for mail opening. Will it refer to specific pieces of mail, or are we going back to the system whereby the RCMP make their own judgments as to whose mail is to be opened? Is there to be a judicial review of this matter?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. At the present time, there are reported to be several thousand Cuban military advisers and Russian military advisers in Ethiopia. In light of the fact that CIDA have indicated they are prepared to provide some $7.9 million for water supplies, will it be the minister's position to recommend to CIDA that Canada does not at this time provide such money but, rather, we should let the communist nations provide the funding, in view of the fact that money can be better utilized here in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have faced a similar issue in other countries. We had not taken the view that programs of international economic development should be terminated or interrupted because of the political activities of the government of the day. To my current knowledge, that is still the policy of the government of Canada.


Robert Hylton Brisco: In light of the fact that the political activities of this government have yet to provide any assistance for an urgent water supply for the city of Castlegar, which would ensure several hundred jobs almost immediately, is the minister prepared to recommend to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion that some $3 million of Federal money be provided to the community of Castlegar to assist them in their water development and industry?
[Mr. Leggatt.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question seems to be in the nature of a representation.


FISHERIES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Yesterday, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Gaspe, the minister indicated that the government would not permit foreign trawlers to operate in the Gulf of St. Lawrence notwithstanding the fact that they may be catching fish for Canadian plants. Does this prohibition apply to all zones on the Atlantic coast of Canada? What impact would this have on any proposed takeover of Canadian plants by foreign-based, multinational companies?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, this does not apply to other fishing zones. Obviously, there may be cases in which we will want to authorize some landings by vessels from foreign countries when there is a shortage of supply. I would not want to get into the business of foreign takeovers, which I believe was the latter part of the hon. member's question. At the moment, as the hon. member knows, the FIRA process is taking its normal the proponents; the proponents will be appearing before it. I have, however, expressed my view that there are obstacles beyond the narrow definitions of FIRA as to what are "advantages" to Canada.


DATE AND AMOUNT OF 1977 PAYMENTS UNDER STABILIZATION PROGRAM
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. When will the 1977 payments under the grain stabilization plan be made to western farmers? Also, can the minister give an indication of the amount of such payments?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is not yet possible to be precise about the amount. Indeed, the final amount may not be known for some time. However, the likelihood is that an analysis of the figures will allow us to look at the question of whether an interim payment should be made. We will be discussing that matter in the very near future.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the minister has touched on my supplementary question. Because of the fact that farm incomes have been dropping, and representations have been made to the minister for an interim payment, can the minister assure the House that an interim payment will be made? If not, what
January 31, 1978

difficulty does he see in making an interim payment well before the spring, so that farmers will have some ready cash and be able to plant in the spring of 1978?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his support. The notion of an interim payment was first put by me to the advisory committee for the reasons to which the hon. member so ably referred.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister is quoted as saying in an interview that if a prospective immigrant to Quebec failed to meet the federal criteria, but was admitted under the Quebec selection criteria, he could move to another part of Canada "at some later date". This raises the whole question of whether interprovincial mobility has been clarified. In view of the fact that the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration rejected area designation when it discussed the immigration bill, I ask the minister whether this is a reinstatement of area designation. Also, how much time would have to elapse before an immigrant could move to another part of Canada?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, recognizing that there is an opportunity and, in fact, a responsibility for the provinces to participate in the immigration field, it seemed appropriate that we should discuss with each of the provinces-there are, in fact, discussions going on with four or five provinces at the present time- some method of co-determination of the landing of immigrants. I have indicated, and I will stick with this statement, that there will be no loss of the mobility aspect as a result of agreements entered into. The agreements that we enter into must be consistent with the British North America Act and with immigration policy. Therefore, it is not a renunciation of the regional aspect. I think the hon. member will be satisfied with the co-determination aspects of the agreements we are proposing to enter into.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. It is similar to a question I asked the minister earlier this session. In view of the undertakings the minister gave us previously, that the regulations would be before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in order to determine whether they were in keeping with the spirit of the Immigration Act, and in view of the agreement regarding which the minister indicated he is trying to obtain co-determination from the provinces, can we have the minister's commitment that the agreement and the regulations will be brought before the standing committee so that the committee and, in fact, all Canadians can know exactly what we are agreeing to?
Oral Questions


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we are in the process of negotiating with the provinces. It seems inappropriate to bring before this House or anyone else terms and conditions that have not as yet been agreed upon. Until that has been done, we really do not have anything to report to the House.


INQUIRY AS TO EXPLORATIONS LAST YEAR
Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Riviere-du-Loup-T6miscouata):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
It is not a secret for anyone that there has been an increase in oil prices and therefore, I imagine, new profits for corporations. But as regards the anticipated benefits for Canada, that is more prospection and exploration, did these activities really take place during the last 12 months?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of increases in the budget for energy research and development. I would be very pleased to provide the hon. member with a list of them. High priority has been given to conservation and renewable energy sources, but very substantial funds are being allocated for petroleum-related energy projects, in conjunction with the province of Alberta in particular but also with the province of Saskatchewan in connection with tertiary recovery.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the importance to the people of Atlantic Canada of the fisheries resources, along possibly with hydrocarbon resources, of Georges Bank, is the minister in a position to give the House a report on the progress of the discussions concerning the ownership of this bank presently being carried out by Canada and the United States?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: The question of boundaries with the United States is of great importance to at least four regions of the country, including two in the Pacific region. The negotiations have not been successful to date, but the two special negotiators have agreed that in light of the substantial progress they have made, they will continue to work during February. They recognize that some difficulties persist. They are now reporting to their

January 31, 1978
Oral Questions
respective governments, the positions will be reassessed, and it is hoped they will resume negotiations in the second half of February.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: One brief supplementary. Since the area in question falls within the 200-mile economic zone of the United States as well as within the 200-mile economic zone of Canada, has the minister given any thought to proposing to the negotiators that we consider banning all foreign fishing activity from that area and allocating all the resources in the so-called grey area on a 50-50 basis to the two countries most concerned?


Roméo LeBlanc: I would have to check the statistics, but it is my information that off the eastern coast of the United States and Canada there is little foreign Fishing for species for which we have ready markets. The hon. member's suggestion is an interesting one and I will discuss it with the officials.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, my question is of deep interest and extreme concern to my constituents, and I direct it to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It arises from the various visits made by the hon. gentleman to the new riding of Leeds-Grenville. I presume they are an indication of his extreme interest in the welfare of the people in that area. Is the minister aware that the unemployment rate there has risen in about a year from below the national average to twice the national average? What plans does the minister have to deal with this situation? Is he prepared to order Canada Manpower to set up special facilities to assist the many hundreds who have been laid off as a result of slumping industry?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It is true that I have made several trips to the new riding at the request of the local Liberal organization and of the people in the community. The hon. member should know that he has an obligation to draw to the attention of the people in his riding the many and varied services which are available from my department. The comment keeps coming back: the riding has been good for Cossitt, but has Cossitt been good for the riding?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The difficulty we get into is evident when we focus upon the problems of a particular constituency during the question period. I do not want to restrict hon. members unduly, but one can easily see that when the question period is used in that way, it invites the kind of political commentary which I have discouraged during this stage of our proceedings. We should not let this practice go too far. I shall allow one supplementary.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: My supplementary is simply this: Several of the hon. gentleman's special assistants have been working with people in the riding. Are they making a constructive survey of the unemployment situation, or are they in reality engaged at the taxpayers' expense in desperately trying to find a Liberal candidate for the next election?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FINANCE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Has he addressed himself to the serious issue of the Algoma Steel appeal and the increased import levy on offshore steel from 10 per cent to 30 per cent? To what extent and in what manner has the hon. gentleman addressed himself to this problem? Have there been discussions with his cabinet colleagues, particularly the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of National Revenue):: This matter is under review at the moment by the cabinet and officials of my department.


Frank Oberle: Since this issue is causing serious tension in western Canada, can the minister advise us of the date we can expect a decision to be made on this very serious matter?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I agree with the hon. member that this is a very serious matter. It is one which is of great concern to my department and to the cabinet. As soon as we can finalize the question, the hon. member will hear about it.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that the Richmond council in British Columbia has withdrawn its support for the construction of a third runway at the Vancouver international airport? Further, has he been informed that the council is in favour of a Richmond access route to the Arthur Laing bridge, regarding it now as having higher priority than the construction of a third runway?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by the council of a change in its position. As to access to the bridge, this is a question which has been under discussion for some time. I have always expressed willingness to co-operate with the approved and appropriate local solution. The dilemma to which Vancouver



January 31, 1978

has always drawn attention is that if additional traffic comes off the bridge, it is doubtful whether there is enough street capacity to handle it. This, I understand, is the local conclusion, or it was when I last saw the mayor. I am, of the proponents, receptive to a change in position on the part of Vancouver too, if there is to be one.


EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY-GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES REGARDING CONTRACTUAL LINK
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: I am tempted to ask the Prime Minister whether he is feeling as pessimistic as his rose looks today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: More seriously, are any new initiatives being taken with regard to the contractual link with the European Economic Community, of which we heard so much a year or two ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and in a direct sense. The Chancellor of Germany has just announced there will be an economic summit in July to which Canada will be invited. It will be preceded by a meeting of the members of the Community with which we have developed this extraordinarily successful contractual link.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Now that she has been the head of her very important department long enough to know that a great many Canadian women between 60 and 65 feel very unhappy and upset over the fact that there is no pension for them unless they have the status of being married to and living with someone who is 65 or over, is the minister giving consideration to the necessary amendments to the Old Age Security Act so that persons between the ages of 60 and 65, particularly women, who are in need will get a pension without regard to their marital status?


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, I answered the same question very recently put to me by other members of this House. We are reviewing the situation, and I have nothing new to add today.
Oral Questions
As soon as I am ready to give a further explanation, I will do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, while the minister and her department are reviewing that aspect of the question, will they also review other ways in which women are discriminated against, such as their being excluded, if they are housewives, from Canada Pension Plan benefits, as well as various pension plans under which the survival portion for a widow is only half what it is when the widower survives?


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the Prime Minister's reply to a question posed to him by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. As reported on January 23 at page 2088 of Hansard, the Prime Minister indicated that the appointment and the signature of letters of credence for Canadians serving in the diplomatic service abroad were henceforth to be signed by the Governor General, on the strength of letters patent issued in 1947. If my calculations are correct, the Prime Minister is the fifth prime minister since those letters patent were issued. I am wondering how it came about that he suddenly found the secret that the other four did not find in the letters patent which permitted those letters of credence to be signed in Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no secret at all, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. gentleman reads the letters patent, as I suspect he has, he will see that at that time the letters patent vested in the Governor General all and every power exercisable by the Queen with regard to Canada. Certainly, this includes the signing of letters of credence for ambassadors.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am taking into account the preamble, or the salutation of those letters of credence, which reads as follows:
George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King-


Mr. Crosbie:: Including Newfoundland.


Donald W. Munro: Would the Prime Minister like to correct the words attributed to him in the second column on that page, because there he talks about a transference from the Queen of England to the Governor General in Canada. Surely he meant the Queen of Canada to her representative the Governor General in Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there was some noise which blotted out the question, but as far as I understood it, the question was whether Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada. The answer is yes.

January 31, 1978
Nova Scotia PRIVILEGE


MR. MUNRO (ESQUIMALT-SAANICH)-TRANSFER OF MONARCH'S AUTHORITY
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The words standing in the second column on page 2088 of Hansard for January 23, attributed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), referred to the transfer of authority from the Queen of England. It was not. As I read my constitutional history, it was the Queen of Canada who made the transfer. I am wondering if the Prime Minister wishes to correct this in Hansard so that future historians and future readers of Hansard will understand the constitutional position of this country?


Mr. Speaker:: It may be a useful suggestion for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), but it certainly does not constitute a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Tabling of documents.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question of tabling of documents, 1 have let a certain matter lie until now. On November 30 the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) undertook to look into the question of tabling in this House the report of the Public Service Commission with respect to handicapped persons. It is now the end of January and that matter has not been proceeded with thus far. Perhaps there is a reason for it and the minister could explain it. I will be very glad to hear his explanation. It is a very important report and it needs elucidation. Would the minister be prepared to undertake to table it immediately?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I have no particular excuse. I forgot about it for this past week or so. I will certainly undertake to table it as soon as possible within the next few days.


NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-416, respecting the official designation of "Nova Scotia".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
[Mr. Trudeau.)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The purpose of this bill is to designate the Latin words "Nova Scotia" as the correct and official name of the province in both official languages.


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

Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)) moved:: That the members to serve on the part of this House on the Special Joint Committee on the National Capital Region be Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton), Mr. Clermont, Mr. Corbin, Mr. Darling, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Francis, Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier), Mr. Harquail, Mr. Isabelle, Mr. LaSalle, Mrs. Pigott, Mr. Poulin, Mr. Rondeau, Mr. Saltsman and Mr. Stewart (Cochrane); and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition on behalf of a group of citizens from the Vaudreuil-Soulanges area and of 180 workers of Pasolds (Canada) Limited, which is about to close its doors this week. The petitioners urge the federal parliament to reconsider the reasons put forward for excluding the counties of Vaudreuil-Soulanges from the industrial assistance program of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and ask it to include those areas in this program.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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: 118, 153 to 157 inclusive, 750, 765, 780 and 967.


Mr. Herbert: Has the government permitted or considered permitting the deferral of the collection of taxes payable upon the death of one member of a family farm?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: In accordance with the government's policy of encouraging a strong and viable agricultural sector, the
January 31, 1978

Income Tax Act was amended in 1973 and 1975 in order to permit farmland, buildings and machinery to be transferred tax-free to a farmer's wife or children on his death. This is generally referred to as a "rollover" privilege. In order to qualify for the rollover, certain conditions must be satisfied. For example, the property must have been used by the farmer or his family in a farming business. In addition, the taxpayer's wife, children or grandchildren who receive this property on his death must be resident in Canada. The purpose of these special rules is to allow farmland, buildings and machinery to be passed indefinitely between generations without any tax being paid at the time of the transfer. Taxpayers having specific questions about these rules should contact the Minister of National Revenue who is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Income Tax Act.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did the "Chambre de Commerce de la province de Quebec" located at 500 St-Fran$ois Xavier, Montreal, receive a grant from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and, if so (a) in what amount (b) on what date?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: no.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did Demuth Inc. located in St-Pie-de-Bagot, Quebec, receive a grant from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and, if so (a) in what amount (b) on what date?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: under the terms of the Regional Development Incentives Act, an incentive offer of $145,520 was made to Demuth Inc. on January 14, 1976, and subsequently accepted by the company. Payments against the incentive offer are made according to section C of the procedures described in the monthly incentives report to parliament.
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: nil.
GRANT TO WIREFIL INC.-ST-LfiONARD, QUEBEC


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did Wirefil Inc. located at 8585 Langelier, St-Leonard, Quebec, receive a grant from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and, if so (a) in what amount (b) on what date?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: under the terms of the Regional Development Incentives Act, an incentive offer of $39,834 was made to Wirefil Inc. on August 9, 1973, and
Order Paper Questions
subsequently accepted by the company. Payments against the incentive offer are made according to section C of the procedures described in the monthly incentives report to parliament.
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: (a) $28 under the Counselling Assistance to Small Enterprises (CASE) Program, (b) Fiscal year 1974/75.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did Phil-Rey Inc. located at 1800 St-Charles Blvd, Drummondville, Quebec receive a grant from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and, if so (a) in what amount (b) on what date?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: under the terms of the Regional Development Incentives Act, an incentive offer of $44,425 was made to Phil-Rey Inc. on March 23, 1977, modified on May 11, 1977, and subsequently accepted by the company. Payments against the incentive offer are made according to section C of the procedures described in the monthly incentives report to parliament.
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: nil.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did the Cari-Rell Company located at 175 St-Cyr, Montreal, Quebec receive a grant from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and, if so (a) in what amount (b) on what date?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: no.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, what amount was spent on interior landscaping by the Department of Supply and Services and on what projects?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: $13,271-rental of art works from Canada Council Art Bank.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Was the government consulted by the Canadian Development Corporation concerning its intention to make a take-over bid for Culinar Inc. of Ste-Marie-de-Beauce, Quebec?
2.	On what basis was the offer of $28.5 million established?

January 31, 1978
Order Paper Questions
3.	Is the book value of the Company approximately $ 13 million?
4.	What approximate percentage of the share holding of Culinar Inc. is presently Canadian owned?
5.	Is the government giving consideration to the formation of a corporation that would have as an objective the acquisition of foreign controlled companies?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1. No. The Canada Development Corporation is intended to operate with a considerable degree of independence. Individual transactions have not been brought to the government for scrutiny and advice.
2, 3 and 4. Not known (see above).
5.	No.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	(a) What was the National Debt in 1968 (b) what is it at the present time?
2.	What is its annual interest rate?
3.	What measure, if any, has the government taken to pay it back?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1. (a) Canada's National Debt in 1968 was
332,924,000,000.* (b) The National Debt at the present time is $67,075,000,000.
2.	The average interest rate on the government's unmatured debt was 7.53 per cent at March 31, 1977.
3.	When economic, fiscal and financial conditions are favourable, the government attempts to reduce this debt.
* The amount for 1968 has not been adjusted to reflect the new presentation of assets and liabilities introduced in 197677. In the new presentation, the Provincial government securities in the Canada Pension Plan Account have been netted out as well as some other minor items.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, were studies made by the Department of Veterans Affairs concerning the need of disabled veterans in New Brunswick for domiciliary care?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The department has been assessing the needs of veterans for priority beds in New Brunswick, having regard to the various levels of care required, and the geographical distribution of veterans in the province. Departmental officials have been in contact with the provincial health authorities, and further discussions have been arranged for early February, 1978.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 979 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

[ Text]


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, what amount was paid by the Canada Council to each theatre for the performing arts or resident company in Canada?
Return tabled.



POINTS OF ORDER


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from a point of order that I raised yesterday and the reply given thereto by the acting parliamentary secretary, who was at that time announcing the questions to be answered.
In regard to question No. 45 dealing with the fingerprinting to a very great extent of public servants, I asked why this question had not been answered. It has been on the order paper since October 18 and it was on the order paper through the whole of the last session of parliament. It has been outstanding for a year or more. Yesterday, as reported at page 2351 of Hansard I asked him specifically if the government would tell the House when we could expect an answer, or whether the question would be answered today. He replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take notice of this question . .. We will have the answer for the hon. member.
Therefore I presume the parliamentary secretary has the answer or the date on which it will be answered, as the case may be. I would appreciate if he could provide me with an answer to that question.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I already had the opportunity to tell the hon. member that he has been asking a great many questions and that the government had dutifully endeavoured to answer most of his questions. Other members are waiting so that we can do the necessary research to give them complete and appropriate answers, and question No. 45 referred to by the hon. member concerns all departments of the government. Therefore that question requires a considerable amount of work and research. I wonder why the hon. member is unduly losing patience. I would simply ask him to be patient and not to carry his indignation too far, bearing in mind the efforts undertaken by this side of the House to give flawless service to the greatest number of members possible. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do want to assure the hon. member that his question is being studied, that we are doing complete research, and I urge him to have the decency not to display his impatience any further.
January 31, 1978


Thomas Charles Cossitt: After a year and a half you call it impatience.



MR. McKINNON-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTION NO. 147

Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a similar point of order. On October 19 I put question No. 147 on the order paper. As yet it has not been answered It was a carry-over from question No. 2,538 of the previous session. It involves the cost for the trip of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) to Europe.
In answer to question No. 2,538 of the previous session, I was told to refer to question No. 2,881 which listed the price of each plane used. The Falcon jet came to several hundred dollars an hour. Calculated on a 24-hour basis for the time the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport had the plane, it came to a total of $378,504. This is quite a bit to pay to satisfy the ego of any minister. When will I receive an answer to my question requesting the real cost of the Falcon flight, which left Canada on April 20 and returned when the minister finished using the plane? The question can be answered easily, since the Department of National Defence keeps very careful record of the cost of these flights. I would like an answer in the near future.



MR. JONES-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTION NO. 145

Mr. Jones:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary if it is at all possible for him to expedite the answers to the questions under question No. 145? We have requested those answers several times but have not received them as yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Earlier the hon. parliamentary secretary indicated if it was agreed that question No. 979 could be transformed into an order for return, the return would be tabled forthwith. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-3, respecting the reorganization of Air
Air Canada
Canada, be read the second time and amendments made by the Senate be concurred in.
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks concerning Bill C-3 which was adopted by the House of November 7, 1977, but I do not want to monopolize too much of the time of the House, for the bell has been using up a good part of our time over the past two weeks. If we want to expedite these affairs, we shall have to limit the length of our interventions. I, for one, am quite willing to do so, while making my views known on this bill.
We all recall that the other place studied this bill after it was passed by the House, as I said, and recommended some amendments which, to me, seem valid and which lead me to believe that they will complete it. Such are the aims of Bill C-3. Air Canada is a Crown corporation. As such, all Canadians are shareholders, and directors are appointed to manage the corporation on behalf of all Canadians. Canadians therefore have the right to demand that its directors do their utmost to properly manage this Crown corporation, and to strive for budgetary balance, as do all private companies. That is why we must occasionally come back on this subject here in the House to remind the directors what parliament and Canadians expect of them. They must absolutely manage the corporation without counting too much on government intervention and on parliament's allocating votes to the corporation to restore budgetary balance when it is in the red. I hold this to be a principle of sound management.
The recommendations of the Auditor General of Canada in other areas should also apply to the Crown corporation, Air Canada. Mr. Speaker, it happens sometimes while travelling throughout the country on Air Canada planes that as parliamentarians we ask ourselves some questions as we see their operations. Although we cannot properly query the officials at work, just the same we ask ourselves the following question: Why such and such a thing is done in such and such a way? When we get the reports of the corporation, several questions still remain unanswered. On the other hand, there are some competitive private companies. It is a good thing to have some competition even in that area where private companies do their utmost to provide excellent services to attract customers.
So, for its part, Air Canada must also do what it can to try and attract the greatest number of people to travel on its flights so they will be as full as possible and profitable. But it so happens sometimes, Mr. Speaker, and I do want to draw the attention of the minister on this-although he may be out, perhaps temporarily, I would like to tell him that I noticed on several occasions, and I remember the time when the late Real Caouette used to sit in this House and make rather frequent remarks about the fact that all across Canada the staff on Air Canada planes did not provide adequate bilingual services. I think that with aircraft flying all over this country, if bilingualism is to be promoted in this country Air Canada should have at least bilingual staff on its aircraft. Nothing aggravates me more than when I address an Air Canada employee in French and that employee does not seem to understand me and tells me, I am sorry.

Air Canada
I understand that they should be sorry about it but the fact still remains that I do not get an answer. That is disappointing on an airline such as Air Canada when there would be a great opportunity of setting a good example all across this country and showing that Canada is bilingual and that at least public services are provided in both official languages. We can do that if we really want to. The same thing goes for an Englishspeaking Canadian. Imagine an English-speaking Canadian in Quebec city talking to an Air Canada official at the Ancienne-Lorette airport, the Quebec city airport, and there is no one to answer him in English. He too is going to be aggravated. He is going to wonder: But what is going on in Canada? How come I cannot get service in my language?
That is why I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), who is responsible in this area, to use with his officials all the means he can to try and improve this service in the area of language communication so all Canadians will be proud when they travel on Air Canada planes, if they cannot get it on the ground, to have at least bilingualism in the air. We are going to fight for that, Mr. Speaker. We are going to fight further because it is a right, and because it is part of our constitution. Let us at least live up to the good parts in our Canadian constitution. Some are mere nonsense, but that is something relevant, it is acceptable, it is something we should live up to and be proud of. That would be the best way to ensure understanding between French- and English-speaking Canadians. Looking at each other we look reasonable. But when we try to talk to each other, we do not speak the same language and that is where the problem starts. To help solve the problem we have government services that can very well promote bilingualism, and Air Canada should be an expert in that field.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, on a somewhat more optimistic and very patriotic tone, I must say that when I stand in a foreign airport I am very proud to see our Air Canada aircraft arriving, those giant airplanes with a beautiful flag on their wings. Yes, I feel proud that our planes measure up with those of any other country. They are very well built and very comfortable, and they lack only one thing, bilingualism!
I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is not forgetting this: we demand bilingualism in air services, and we will go on demanding it as long as a favourable answer is not forthcoming. To conclude, I accept the amendments to Bill C-3 and also the bill itself of the proponents. If there is a vote, I shall make a point of supporting it.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to say a few words on this piece of legislation, Bill C-3, respecting Air Canada, because ever since I came to this place I have been interested in the operations of our national air line.
I think it is fair to say that during the past two or three years there has been an improvement in the operations of Air Canada, and I think this piece of legislation is a good one and

will facilitate the operations of the company. However, I think that to put matters in a historical perspective it would be useful to go back a little bit, as my friend, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), did yesterday, and to point out some of the delays and some of the incredible lack of inititative by the government in not bringing this legislation forward years ago. I say that advisedly in view of the unfortunate remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) who sought to give the completely inaccurate impression in the program "The Nation's Business" that it was the opposition parties which were holding up the legislative progress of this parliament rather than the government's poor planning and lack of purpose and direction.
I think it is rather amazing to consider that it is now practically six years since the then minister of transport, now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), recognized in this Chamber the urgent need for legislation to revamp and restructure Air Canada. On March 14, 1972 he said:
-I propose to bring before the House in the next session three important pieces of legislation on which work is proceeding at the present time. The first of these is a bill designed to reconstitute Air Canada as a separate Crown corporation, thus divorcing it, as it were, from CNR-
Here we are six years later and, as the saying goes, definitely "it ain't performance". It is almost equally noteworthy that almost three years after the date of the judicial inquiry into certain aspects of Air Canada-an inquiry, as most hon. members realize, for which our party was responsible-we still have not completed, and we are here today trying to complete, the legislative process to embody some of the changes and improvements recommended by Mr. Justice Estey in that report.
Part of the problem has been the reluctance to accept some of the logic and reason that has been put forward from many sources until the government was practically coerced into doing so. Even the noteworthy section which the minister and his colleagues have finally agreed to eliminate, section 6(2), has been eliminated only after the other place-and I think they deserve credit for this-reinforced this party's determination to take away this carte blanche which the government sought to have which, in my view, would seriously undermine the integrity of this legislation.
I think it would be useful to go back a little way since there have been developments so far as our national air line is concerned which indicate that there is a possibility that Nor-dair will be acquired, and to point out that just as the progress has been tortuously slow in respect of this particular piece of needed legislation, the policy with respect to regionals has been, if anything, even slower.
In October, 1966, J. W. Pickersgill, who was then minister of transport, issued a statement of principles outlining the role the regional air lines would be committed to play. They were to provide regular route operations into the north, and to operate local and regional routes to complement the main carriers. Where appropriate, routes operated by the mainline companies would be transferred to the regionals.
January 31, 1978

There were other developments which were proposed by the government at that time. The Air Transport Board, now the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission, would be responsible for deciding which routes would be suitable for regional air line operations; it would also administer the policy relating to the transfer of these routes.
The regional carriers accepted this policy and began to develop their operations within its framework. They had long recognized the need to increase traffic and improve the stability of their operations, but had been hesitant to do so without firm recognition and direction from government. Under the new policy, they were prepared to move on their own initiative to develop their scheduled service, seek out new routes, and use their own resources, imagination, and business acumen to make them profitable. That has not happened very quickly.
In 1969 the government announced a refinement of the policy, dividing the country into regions and letting the regional know exactly where they could move. Pacific Western was given British Columbia and western Alberta; Transair the prairie provinces and northwestern Ontario, and so on. Nor-dair and other regionals were given certain route structures.
The policy allowed for route transfers, modest competition with the mainline carriers, and co-operation between the two.
The Air Transport Committee has taken no action of any consequence, so far as I know, to determine which routes operated by the mainline carriers are eligible for transfer. No guidelines have yet been developed for new types of services that could be established by regional carriers, services such as airbus or specialized cargo services, with few if any exceptions.
Co-operation between the mainline carriers on route transfers to regional carriers has not been consistent. The eight years or so that have passed since some of these policies were announced have been noteworthy because of the mushrooming of the so-called third-level carriers. These carriers are smaller than regional carriers, which are also looking upward and outward. I suggest that these reasons make it necessary and a matter of some urgency to re-examine some of the objectives envisioned by the policy and to ensure their early realization.
Surely Canada now needs, in the context of the legislation we are dealing with today, a clear policy statement on transcontinental, regional, third-level, helicopter and charter operations, if our air transportation system is to continue to grow in an orderly way.
Our national carrier recently has been doing much better financially, but in order to keep matters in perpective we must realize that profitability alone can never be the sole criterion for a national air carrier, otherwise there will be very justifiable concerns raised by the disadvantaged parts of the country which rightly expect our national air carrier to help facilitate regional development.
Before we get too puffed up about the profits Air Canada is expected to show, I think we should remember that some of its competitors in North America, particularly in the United
Air Canada
States, face tougher competition. Some competitors have roughly comparable route structures but are doing much better. They are doing so with fewer employees and lesser load factors. The annual report of Delta Airlines, which I have before me, indicates that for the year 1977 Delta's profit before taxes was $155 million, and it appears that its net profit will be over $90 million. I have heard a figure of possibly $20 million for Air Canada, which is certainly much better than its performance in recent years, but when that is compared with the performance of Delta we realize that, while it is reasonable, it is not something Air Canada can necessarily point to with any overweening pride.
It seems to me that there are some legitimate questions to raise about the situation in which Nordair is in the process of being acquired by Air Canada. My colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville, discussed this situation yesterday, and I want to touch upon some of the things he said.
It is pretty obvious that Air Canada has not been particularly imaginative or innovative in getting into the charter business or in developing new route structures. I well remember the abortive experience this company had when it tried to acquire Wardair and the rather naive way the corporate expertise of Air Canada stacked up against the much more practical and knowledgeable expertise shown by this particular private charter carrier. In the present particular case Nordair is a pretty healthy and well respected regional carrier, and I would have thought that if Air Canada was going to pick up a regional carrier, it would have been the better policy to take one with some financial difficulty. That would have rationalized the system somewhat and would have had the virtue of rescuing a carrier which perhaps needed help. However, what do we see with respect to Nordair? It is probably one of the healthiest-at least recently-regional carriers.
It is interesting that the proposed price of $ 11.50 for each Nordair share is $4.50 more than the price the stock was trading at when the exchange closed late in December of last year, a matter of a very few weeks ago. It is also interesting, although far be it from me to knock private enterprise, that some of the main shareholders of Nordair are going to make some very substantial profits. It appears that this may be done at the expense, indirectly at least, of the taxpayers of Canada, who are the ultimate owners of Air Canada. Mr. Tooley appears to be headed for a profit of $1 million in a very short time, based on the market fluctuations of the stock. Mr. Marx, one of the principal shareholders who lives in New York, picked up 17,000 shares at $2.58 per share last June. Now he is going to get $11.50, a nice little profit indeed.
Apart from that there is concern in the industry about the effect this may have on the relationship of other regional carriers. According to the Montreal Star the president of Pacific Western Airlines, Mr. Eyton, is concerned. According to an article in the Montreal Star of January 10 of this year, Air Canada's purchase of the Montreal-based Nordair Limited may interfere with his company's plans.

January 31, 1978
Air Canada
Mr. Eyton was quoted as follows:
I would not like to see a regional carrier like PWA running alongside a major carrier like Air Canada. With the acquisition of Nordair any route opportunities, in terms of what Air Canada might have been willing to turn over to regional carriers, is lost.
From an historical perspective it is interesting how things turn out, because if Air Canada had directed its attention to its own corporate business as much as to opposing some of the regional carriers like, ironically enough, the one it now seeks to acquire, we would all be better off. In the not so recent past our national airline opposed Nordair in its application for routes, and I am thinking particularly of the Montreal-Ottawa-Sudbury-Thunder Bay route. Now we find that this company is gobbling up, or acquiring at the expense of the taxpayers of this country, what it opposed and what it was not able to develop by itself a very short time ago.
I want to say at this time again that in making these remarks I am not taking an anti-Air Canada bias. I very much hope that our national air carrier does well. I personally have high regard for the chief executive officer, and I am particularly impressed with the morale and efficiency of many of the employees. As the hon. member for Vegreville said yesterday, it is a shame that the proposed reward by way of a bonus involving passes to employees was handled in a rather peremptory and perhaps not very efficient way, which probably has the net effect of embarrassing the employees and blunting an initiative which might have been very appropriate had it been handled in a slightly different way after some consultations and some variations, instead of having the announcement made and then having to vary the original proposal.
Another thing I think we have to look at is the fact that, as far as I am concerned, Air Canada is not fulfilling its mandate in the eastern part of the country in the sense of serving as a real aid to developing that part of the country and providing it with important links. Surely there must be something Air Canada and the government can do to facilitate the utilization of the route from Halifax to Bangor.
In 1973 Canada and the United States signed a bilateral agreement which included a route, effective as of January 1, 1974, between Montreal, Bangor, Portland and Halifax. This route has never been implemented because, according to Air Canada, there was no money in it. The route was designated to be of use only in summer peak service periods. I understand that Air Canada is now saying that that was the time in 1974 when the airline industry was in an upheaval crisis due to fuel shortages. I also understand, although it has not been officially confirmed, that Air Canada would consider the possibility of subcontracting or negotiating this route with some other air carrier.
However, be that as it may, it seems obvious that Bangor is making great strides as a commercial and warehousing centre in the northeastern part of the United States. It is obvious to anyone who knows the maritime provinces that Halifax is becoming more and more a commercial centre for that region of the country.

The Halifax International Airport was recently upgraded. I should like to see the Ottawa International Airport given the same kind of facilities that Halifax now has. At the present time when one boards an aircraft at Ottawa airport it is like going on a tour of the sunken gardens or a sideshow orientation where you go through long winding tunnels and canvass flaps of various hues. I guess improvements will come in time.
The Halifax-Bangor route ought to be developed. I am no expert on air transportation but I imagine any route that requires promotion and pioneering will lose money for a while. I also imagine that, if Air Canada does not do something constructive soon, residents of this area will be justified in asking their elected representatives to consider allowing an airline like Delta to operate there-one that is already making at least four times the profit of Air Canada and under tougher competition.
I think it should be made clear to the chief executive officers of the airline and to the government that if they do not do something about filling this designated route with a Canadian air carrier that can provide needed transportation and trade links with Bangor, an American carrier should be permitted and even encouraged to come in and do the job. This has to be considered.
In summing up my views about this legislation I must say the thing that must be kept in mind is that it would appear that this bill seems to have achieved the objective of giving Air Canada enough corporate freedom and initiative to do its job without interference from officials in the Department of Transport who have a penchant for fouling up everything they attempt and antagonising people at the same time, at least at the highest levels. It also seems to have had the effect of giving the board of directors a clear mandate. The primary objective, of the proponents, was to free this billion dollar corporation of the entanglements that our other national carrier, the CNR, has experienced.
Members of this House will be watching very closely to see the beneficial effects of this legislation and will expect the minister and his cabinet colleagues to ensure that the improved framework for operating the airline is used properly.
I urge the government to cease the practice which has been so painfully evident in the past of scheduling-or not scheduling-committee proceedings so that Air Canada can be reviewed regularly by interested elected representatives. It is not the fault of our national air carrier that their appearances before the transportation committee have been few and far between; it is rather due to the ineptitude and bungling of the government. As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, the government has attempted to place the responsibility for this on the shoulders of the opposition parties. The government House leader will be sorry, I am sure, for the representation that he put over the networks of this country as it is so self-serving and so false.
The legislation could be summed up in the words of an old proverb-better late than never. I trust it will serve our
January 31, 1978

national air carrier well and justify the work and concern that so many members of this House from all parties have put into its composition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Chair would like to point out to all hon. members that we have been very lenient with members who have spoken on Bill C-3 dealing with amendments made by the other place. I would therefore suggest that all future speakers stay strictly on the flight path and speak only on those technical amendments made by the other place.
I should like to refer hon. members to May's eighteenth edition, page 534, where the following passage appears:
The debate on this motion must be confined to the amendment under consideration, and may not extend to other amendments or to the general merits of the bill.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I presume it was purely accidental that you made your ruling at this particular time. After listening to some of the other speeches I do not see how I could possibly be out of order.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) must be interested that we are now having another kick at the cat because of the sober second thought given this bill in the other place. Some of my colleagues disagree with the word "sober" but that word appears in the legislation which created the other place. The amendments have eliminated the right of the government to make decisions. Instead of being covered by order in council, they are now to be covered by order of the governor in council.
One of the major changes that Air Canada has made recently is that the president is no longer a political appointee but rather is someone who has risen from the ranks. This would appear to be a good measure judging by the fact that in 1975 the airline lost over $13 million while in the first quarter of 1977 it showed a profit. We appreciate the good job done by the president, Mr. Claude Taylor, and all previous speakers have referred to this.
A former minister of transport, Senator Marchand, when speaking on this bill, referred to the great size of this country and the difference in services necessary for different parts of it and to the fact that heavily populated areas require a different transportation facility than that necessary for remote areas. Of the proponents that was recognized when the country was founded and when assistance was given to the Canadian Pacific Railway to provide facilities in remote areas.
Air travel in this country started with a large number of very small airlines, one man-one plane operations, and eventually we established what we hoped would be the flag-fleet of the air service of Canada to carry our flag all over the world. Members who have travelled abroad have been very proud to see an Air Canada plane sitting at an airport in Europe, Asia, Africa, or any other part of the world. This equals the pride which the people of France have in Air France, and the British have in their airlines serving all parts of the world. I am sure this is true of every country. It is also interesting to note the pride of small African countries in their airlines. When travelling from central Africa to England, they take great pride in
Air Canada
flying the banner of East African Airlines. This pride is worth something.
Over the years Canada has been well served by Air Canada. However, Air Canada has had a great deal of problems. We have never had a transportation facility which takes into consideration the fact that if it is going to operate all across this country, providing service on uneconomic routes to the by-ways of the nation, it must use income derived from the heavily populated routes to provide such service.
It has been pointed out that we have not been able to compete. Neither have the railways. They have not been able to compete in the United States. A few moments ago, an hon. member referred to Delta Airlines. In the United States there are eight or ten airlines. They have a population of 220 million on which to draw. In Canada there are seven main carriers, five regionals and two major airlines, Air Canada and CP. We have a population of only 22 million. I believe we have done very well.
It is interesting to note the way the American airlines have changed their accounting system. For example, in one year Eastern Airlines lost $45 million. The next year they had a book transfer of $44 million. Therefore they are now able to show a profit. They may not be able to do that over a ten-year period. Eventually they will have to relate to the new book values they have placed on their investment. That will have to be taken into consideration.
Despite bad management of Air Canada and the fact the government treated it as having a responsibility without offsetting it with any asset, Air Canada has done fairly well. In 1975 Air Canada had a loss of $13 million. It reached the point where morale was rock bottom.
I recall members of this House asking for a financial statement. The situation was so bad at that time the government could not decide whether to honour the previous government's commitment to an auditing firm to audit the books of Air Canada or whether to appoint their own auditors. For a number of years there were no auditors because the government could not resolve that problem. They operated under immense hardship. The morale of Air Canada suffered badly. Mr. Claude Taylor has been able to make great changes. Therefore, we must give him the support that is necessary. This will involve a number of things.
The Minister of Transport stated, and I am paraphrasing, that his purpose is to get Air Canada into a position where it is making money and is a financial success. If that is achieved, the minister thinks we should then get rid of those sections that are successful. In my opinion, Air Canada would be fragmented to the point where it would be in the same position as the CN passenger service.
Not long ago I attended one of railway hearings. I am sure Your Honour has been at many of them. The CNR was asking for subsidization of passenger service on a specific line. That was the only question before the hearing, whether they should be allowed to drop passenger service on that line which ran

January 31, 1978
Air Canada
between North Bay and Toronto. I attended as a member of parliament. I completely supported their application to drop that passenger service. I was opposed to a subsidy being paid to them when they were not in effect operating a service. Service was so bad that no one would use it. People use the Ontario Northland Railway, a totally Ontario-owned railway which operates in this province. That railway is not entitled to apply for a subsidy. CN asked for a subsidy or, in the alternative, to drop the service.
I had hoped that CN would sell its line to Ontario Northland so that passenger service between northern Ontario and Toronto could become more efficient. I am sure it could be operated without a loss. There would be no need for a subsidy. But of the proponents, it was decided that CN must continue, and because it had to continue, they were to be subsidized.
From reading the bill and the changes recommended by the other place, my understanding is that Air Canada will be permitted to implement a regional basis of reporting. Recently, Transair was told to take the western Canadian routes from Winnipeg to Regina, Winnipeg to Edmonton and Winnipeg to Calgary. These routes are now operating at a loss. In return for that, they were given the route from Winnipeg to Toronto through Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie. As a result of transfers like this, airlines will be fragmented to the point that it will be impossible to travel anywhere in Canada without travelling on two or three different carriers. If this operates like a railroad, and I have every reason to believe it does, we will find that the initiating line, which will likely be between the major operating centres, will get the lion's share of the revenues. Very little will be left for the carriers that operate on a regional basis.
Your Honour is very fortunate to be in the position where you can fly from here to your constituency on one airline, the government airline. If I fly to my constituency, I must travel on two airlines. And even if I take the alternative to the Air Canada route, I must travel on two airlines as well.
If the profitable runs are sold, I suggest that it will be necessary to make two or three changes when travelling in this country. This means giving up the idea of a national airline with equal opportunity to people living in various parts of the country. This is a fundamental right to which Canadians are entitled.
Air Canada is being told to fly into Yellowknife. For years I travelled on a route which lost money. It went from Montreal to Ottawa, Ottawa to Val-d'Or, Val-d'Or to Rouyn, Rouyn to Earlton, on to Toronto and then back to Montreal. The mileage on that one flight would cover half the distance of travelling to Europe. There were many stops on that run. The passenger service was not sufficient to cover the cost of operation of that run. However, it filled a great need for the people of northern Quebec and northeastern Ontario.
I am sure that every member who lives outside of the five or six major centres is aware of what Air Canada did for the citizens of this country, even though it was not economically advantageous. However, they felt they had a right to some service.

I would be remiss if I did not refer to something which has been mentioned many times by other members in relation to the American airlines. Along with other airlines Air Canada made the mistake especially in the late sixties, of getting the wrong type of aircraft for many of the routes it was serving. It was almost commonplace to see routes served by aircraft which were never more than half filled. It seems to me this is why the regional carriers are successful-they have been willing to buy aircraft which meet the needs of these runs.
I am flying almost regularly now, in 1978, in a DC-3 which was virtually obsolete in the middle forties, a plane which has not been modified or changed in any substantial way since the forties. It was flying in the thirties and it is still flying. I consider the Douglas DC-3 to be one of the safest planes we have. It is true it lacks some of the advantages of modern planes but it can carry passengers more economically on a cents-per-mile basis than most modern aircraft, and it meets the needs of routes where only a light passenger load can be expected.
It is unfortunate that Air Canada did not see fit to acquire a certain number of smaller aircraft so that it could move passengers along such routes in a more economical way. I have no doubt the management of the corporation will be giving close consideration to this aspect. I trust no decision will be made to buy Twin Otters for no better reason than to keep the investments of the Ontario government or of the federal government safe. It seems to me we should be buying aircraft on a totally different basis.
Many airlines in the United States operated with Viscount aircraft, probably the most expensive passenger aircraft ever developed. They were so expensive that two or three of the U.S. airlines using them went bankrupt. It took a very rich organization, Air Canada, to operate the Viscount during its last years of service. The correct choice of aircraft is a matter of great importance, it seems to me.
With perhaps one exception, the bill has come back to us from the Senate with very little alteration. Apart from clause 8, most of the amendments merely involve renumbering clauses. I have a copy of a note sent along with the amendments and signed by James Lyon, acting general counsel for the Department of Finance. I imagine that some of the amendments were made at the instigation of the Department of Finance since they involve technical matters which might have been overlooked in the original drafting.
One new subclause added by the Senate was to the effect that an order of the governor in council made under clause 6 or clause 8 must be tabled in parliament and published in the Canada Gazette. This is an amendment with which I am sure all members agree. I presume that all orders in council make their way in time into the Canada Gazette, but I would point out that the Canada Gazette is no longer a publication which is read by the average Canadian, though it might interest lawyers and members of legislatures across the country, as well as a handful of other persons who follow these matters closely.
January 31, 1978

I am sure most hon. members have read this publication from time to time and found very little in it which was exciting or illuminating; after reading it for a while and failing to understand what was in it, most of us have desisted from that exercise. If, on the other hand, an order in council is tabled in the House of Commons, interest is immediately attracted. I see my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre is fidgeting in his place. He probably wants to make the point that people are not likely to pay close attention to orders which are tabled in the House, either-of the proponents, that does not apply to me! I see that Senator Grosart and Senator Forsey read them, and if somebody reads them it is likely that orders in council which provoke disagreement will be brought to the attention of the House.
Many of the changes which are made by order in council are carried out because some departmental official finds them to be to his advantage. So a change is made in the form, the direction, or, sometimes, even in the content of legislation. I am sure members of parliament want to know about these things so I believe it is safe to say everyone will support the provision for the tabling of these particular orders in council in the House. After all, the changes might be extensive.
At some point in time, possibly after further study, the government may wish to break off a particular section of the corporation's activities without harming the remaining operations. Those sections which become profitable will be sold and it might be possible to make such changes on the basis of clause 6 of the bill which sets out the powers and activities of the corporation, allowing it to buy, sell, lease, hire, dispose of, maintain, operate and so on. The corporation is by no means restricted to the operation of aircraft. It can provide hotels, surface vehicles and other facilities for servicing and housing. Any single one of these operations, if it became viable, might be broken off. One of the first the minister might consider would be Econo-Travel, the travel service which has been operating for years with mixed success.
It may be Air Canada will want to build hotels as other airlines have done in countries such as in the Caribbean. They may want to build them in France. In travelling to France, Canadians are at a very great disadvantage. In travelling to Paris, particularly if you fly Air France, you can stay at a very reduced rate at hotels owned by Air France. However, if you fly by Air Canada you cannot get that same kind of an arrangement.
We are attempting, I presume, to do the same kind of business which we have done over the years unsuccessfully with CN. It may be by order in council that we may be able to commence building facilities of various kinds, ancillary services, and when they become viable enterprises and stand on their own two feet they will be sold. It may be they will be sold, under the direction of an order in council, and the disposition may be able to be made under clause 6 of this bill.
The Senate, Mr. Speaker, were also concerned about a number of other amendments, all very consequential on the
Air Canada
passing of the initial one, with one exception that stands on its own. The Senate intend by many of these amendments, and there are quite a number of them, just to change the numbering of the clauses. While it is necessary, I think it might have been possible if this House passed the first one we would have known ourselves of the necessity to change the numbering, or there would have been two numbers for the same clause. We do end up with a lot of amendments which we may want to go through at another stage. However, I think at this stage we should be more interested in whether we want to pass the major amendments in this bill. They will in effect change the method used in these acquisitions, disposals and operations of all the ancillary services which I am not sure properly belong to an airline, but which we have created as part of our Canadian airline.
I believe this bill gives the government more power, and in my opinion the airlines should be worried about this as well. Mr. Taylor is a very outspoken gentleman and, I am sure, far-seeing. He will undoubtedly see the disadvantage of the cabinet deciding whether or not Transair should have the right to make the $12 million exchange from the Toronto-Thunder Bay-Winnipeg run to runs including Winnipeg, Regina-the local prairie runs. If the cabinet makes these decisions, Mr. Taylor, I presume, will not be with us very long and we will return to a much more unsatisfactory management. As I see it, Mr. Speaker, these changes can be made in that manner, and we are very concerned.
I personally do not think that there is anything wrong with the initial purpose of Air Canada in providing reasonable transportation to all Canadians, no matter where they live, where it is at all feasible, and where the cost is not exorbitant and prohibitive. In the main, Air Canada has been willing to do this. We have certainly attached to them a terrific handicap. Certainly the Conservatives should be blamed for this handicap because they allowed Canadian Pacific, as an alternate airline, to pick up the cream of the runs, and not to do anything for Canada, not to do anything for the unity of this nation. Canadian Pacific Airlines do not travel to any place which does not pay them to go there. They do not operate anything that it does not pay them to operate. They are a truly private enterprise operation, and I have no quarrel with that. If 1 were a shareholder of Canadian Pacific Airlines I would be very pleased with the way the airline is managed. But, Mr. Speaker, if I were president of Air Canada I would have grave objection to the kind of competition that I meet, which does not aid in the role that I have of providing all Canadians with access to air travel.
1 do not object to competition, but competition should be fair. Competition which the Conservatives speak of is one horse, one rabbit. That may be 50-50, but it is not a very fair 50-50. I believe it should be fair. If we ask the same of our regional carriers, if we ask the same of our two national carriers, that is competition fair and square, and may the best company win.
If Air Canada under those terms could not survive and Canadian Pacific did, then Canadian Pacific would be the flag

January 31, 1978
Air Canada
carrier of our nation. In my opinion that is competition. But what we have today is not competition and I disagree violently with the idea of frittering away little parts because they become profitable, and that appears to be what is going to happen.
One of these amendments questions how this can be done. It questions what the government is doing, and the way the government reports it to parliament. I suggest there are still those in Canada proud of the national airline. Do not forget, Mr. Speaker, many of those people who are proud of Air Canada are proud of it for the simple reason that it is Air Canada. They are proud of its record. They are proud of it because it flies from community to community and carries our flag to other countries around the world. It is not because Canadian people travel via Air Canada. When we provide air travel, we provide it for a very limited number of people in this country. There are people who travel on an air carrier almost every day of their work week, but most people save up all year, take one trip to go on a holiday somewhere, which is usually outside of the country, and that is the only occasion when they fly.
The average Canadian does not travel by air. It is too expensive, and his time is not that valuable. He can afford to drive, to ride a bus or take the train. Therefore we always have to keep in mind that we are providing this type of service, which is very necessary for the economy of the nation. It is very necessary transportation for the business of the communities and it is very important for those who have to get from one point to another over a great distance in a short period of time. We are certainly not suggesting it is not important. We should keep in mind it is important, but that it applies to a very small percentage of our population.
In closing, looking at any record of Air Canada and comparing it with American records, Air Canada does not fare too badly. It is interesting to note the traffic growth in the United States. For instance the revenue per passenger mile for airlines increased 9.9 per cent and freight ton miles increased 6.5 per cent. The industry was more productive by increasing its load factor from 53.7 per cent to 55.4 per cent. However, this falls far short of Air Canada's 61 per cent load factor. Traffic growth in Canada was much slower because of the size of our population and the distance between major cities. Between 1975 and 1976 Air Canada increased its revenue passenger miles by 6 per cent, while Canadian Pacific, that great free enterprise, decreased its revenue passenger miles by 1 per cent. Thus, Air Canada is not doing so bad, and it is serving the Canadian public.
The government should make up its mind on what is going to be done with regional carriers and Canadian Pacific. Is Canadian Pacific to the Liberal party what it was to the Conservative party? Is it their little darling? Does it have to be protected? Does it have to be given all kinds of advantages? The former minister of transport, Mr. Marchand, indicated that it is the over-all transportation facility for Canadians.

Will the government look at it in the same way? If Canadian Pacific is to have this great advantage, then we should know about it. It should be put into a position which is not competitive, because it is not competitive compared to Air Canada.
Something should be done about regional carriers. They should be allowed free access to the market, wherever it may be, within their regions. They should be allowed to compete on the national runs, as Canadian Pacific does. The routes should be formalized. We should take the bull by the horns in terms of travel in Canada, which has been mentioned by other hon. members.
When one can travel to the Caribbean and Mexico and pay less than $400 for a hotel room for a week, and in some cases for two weeks, and when it costs $400 for a person to fly from Ottawa to Vancouver, then surely there is something wrong with the suggestion that a service is being provided to Canadians. If those arrangements are available outside Canada, surely they can be arranged inside Canada.
I do not think the government believes in national unity. It believes in keeping Quebec in the Liberal party. It would be nice for the people of the maritimes to be able to travel to Vancouver for less than $500, and vice versa. Canadians should be given a break when travelling across this country. I have been on planes travelling across Canada which have been slightly over half full. Surely a break could be given to people in order for them to see Canada, especially if they cannot travel otherwise, even if it requires staying in hotels over night on a standby basis to allow normal revenue passengers to take their flights. If we do not intend to do that, then we are only paying lip service to national unity.
My friends across Canada who work in factories, mines, and forests receive only two weeks for their holidays. In order for them to drive to British Columbia and back, they require ten days. Thus, they are left with four days to visit the provinces which they pass through. The only way they can see Canada, which would provide them with a better understanding of the problems facing the country, would be a lesser air fare. The Senate amendments may make it possible for the government to do this, but I have seen little indication on the part of the government that it wants to serve such a role. Rather, it seems the government wants to serve the conservative role, which seems to be a competitive enterprise system for CP Air and very little for the national flight carrier, Air Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the amendments we are studying today include among them an amendment to clause 6.(1 )(g) of the bill, which would give Air Canada the authority to "acquire and hold shares or debt obligations of any other body corporate carrying on activities similar or incidental to those of the corporation and sell or otherwise deal with such shares or debt obligations."
Another amendment we are considering is with respect to clause 6.(2) of the bill which reads as follows:
January 31, 1978

The governor in council may, by order, authorize the corporation to engage in or carry on any activities not otherwise authorized by this act.
There could be concern about the authority to be given directly to the corporation to acquire control of other airline operations, particularly when one takes a preliminary look at the intended takeover by Air Canada of Nordair. Also one can wonder about the implications of the authority which the original bill intended to give to the governor in council. If the amendment from the other place is not accepted, it should be clarified whether this authority would prevail over the regulatory authority of the Canadian Transport Commission.
I am raising this matter at this time in connection with the proposed acquisition of majority control of Nordair by Air Canada. Because of my concerns about this, I have asked the Canadian Transport Commission to make certain, in considering whether to approve the Air Canada takeover of Nordair, that this takeover will not result in any lessening of the service now being provided to Windsor, Hamilton, Ottawa, Montreal and other communities on the present Nordair route by either Nordair or Air Canada. Also I have asked the director of the combines branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to use the authority given him by amendments to the Combines Act, which have been in force since 1976, to consider and make representations to the Canadian Transport Commission about the implications for competition in Canada if permission was granted for Air Canada to take over Nordair.
Air Canada and Nordair are the only airlines providing scheduled service to Windsor, Ontario. Nordair is the only airline directly providing scheduled service to Hamilton, Ontario, although I understand Air Canada advertises its service to Malton airport as serving "Toronto-Hamilton". I am sure the people of Hamilton would agree that such service is not the same as serving Hamilton directly via Mount Hope airport as Nordair does.
The existence of the scheduled service by Nordair to Windsor, Hamilton, Ottawa, Montreal, and so on, during the past few years has provided useful competition to Air Canada. It has provided needed additional flights at convenient times to these communities which were not available until Nordair began its scheduled service to them. Also Nordair has been offering special fares for weekends, for senior citizens and young people, which I understand are less costly than equivalent fares offered by Air Canada. It would not be in the best interests of the communities presently served by Nordair if the takeover by Air Canada brings about any decrease in the services presently offered to them by either or both Nordair and Air Canada.
At about the time of the announcement of the offer of Air Canada to acquire the majority control of Nordair press reports suggested that Air Canada was interested in buying Nordair because of the successful business it has built up in charter flights to foreign destinations. The primary objective of Air Canada should be to improve its service offered within Canada and to make it less costly than at present. Air Canada should strive to change the present situation where it is often
Air Canada
cheaper for Canadians to fly outside Canada, even on Canadian airlines, than it is to fly to points within Canada. It would not be in the public interest if Air Canada attempted to increase its charter business to foreign points by used Nordair planes which are presently serving scheduled routes within Canada.
The press reports at the time of the announcement of the intended takeover of Nordair by Air Canada did not indicate in any way that such a step would be necessary in order to keep Nordair operating since it has been reported to have been financially successful in recent years. That is why, as I have said, I have raised this matter with the Canadian Transport Commission and also with the director of the combines branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As a result, I have been informed very recently by Robert J. Bertrand, director of the combines branch, that he is presently examining the proposed acquisition in light of the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act and those of the National Transportation Act. He went on to inform me that his examination is to determine the extent to which competition will be lessened in the provision of air transportation in Canada, and the effect such a transaction will have on competition in other allied service industries.
I hope that the director of the combines branch will soon complete his preliminary examination and confirm that he will use the authority he now has to raise before the Transport Commission the implications for competition in the air line and related industries if the proposed takeover of Nordair by Air Canada is allowed to go through. I am pleased to have his confirmation that, as a result of my bringing the matter to his attention, he has begun reviewing this transaction for that purpose.
A basis for concern about the effects on competition of the takeover if it were allowed to go through is provided by what is said in a letter which Gerry O'Rourke, assistant manager of Arrow Travel Agency Ltd., sent to Mrs. P. Delbridge of the Consumers' Association of Canada. I refer particularly to the following statement, assuming it contains correct information, in the second paragraph of Mrs. O'Rourke's letter, which reads:
Nordair was also contacted for a price which, at the moment, they have to decline quoting until Air Canada either cannot fulfil your request or for some other reason are unable to accept your booking. Once Air Canada has refused, then Nordair will be pleased to give a price.
Mrs. O'Rourke's letter is dated January 18. It is my understanding that the acquisition of a controlling interest in Nordair by Air Canada subject to CTC approval was announced some nine days earlier.
It might be that the Nordair position referred to in Mrs. O'Rourke's letter is consistent with existing regulations, but if this is so, these regulations would seem to be anticompetitive in their impact, and this is a matter which should be considered by the Transport Commission and which should be raised before it by the director of the combines branch.

January 31, 1978
Air Canada
As a result of my expressing my concerns in a preliminary way to the president of the Canadian Transport Commission about the proposed takeover the president, the Hon. E. J. Benson, replied to me that he has forwarded a copy of my letter to the chairman of the Air Transport Committee. He went on to say, in effect, that he assumed I wanted to oppose the acquisition and my letter dated January 9 could therefore be accepted as a letter of opposition as contemplated by section 27 of the act, if this were my wish and intention. I want to inform the House that as a result, I wrote formally to the president of the CTC saying that I wanted to confirm that my letter to him of January 9 should constitute a formal objection to the proposed acquisition. Also in my letter, I requested that the proposed acquisition be the subject of public hearings by the Air Transport Committee of the CTC.
It is interesting to note that it is not obligatory for this type of transaction to be the subject of public hearings, as I think should be the case, but I hope that the Air Transport Committee will accede to my request and that the matter of the approval of the takeover will be the subject of public hearings so that community bodies in Hamilton, Windsor and elsewhere will have a chance to state their views, but I know that they have concerns similar to mine which they have already expressed in local communities.
It is my intention as well to pursue these concerns, but I wanted to raise this matter at this time to indicate how the broad authority which it is intended this bill should give to Air Canada, and which in some ways it already has, could possibly be exercised in a way which is contrary to the best interests of the communities served by both Air Canada and Nordair, a consequence which could have anti-competitive effects. This should be very important to Canada at this time when we want to stimulate competition in all industries in order to bring about the pressures of competition for the well-being of all Canadians.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, early last October when this Air Canada reorganization bill was before us in the House I made a few brief remarks-I believe it was last November 1-about some very specific aspects of the bill. They dealt with only three items, two of them dealing with the Air Canada freight policy for livestock and a third one dealing with Air Canada's policy of buying off-shore beef, principally from Australia and New Zealand, for their passenger service meals, when we in Canada, through our own Canadian cattle industry, can supply the best beef in the world.
The first two aspects on which I touched were the air freight policy of Air Canada with respect to freighting live cattle and the insistence of Air Canada on the first right of refusal on all bids for air freighting of cattle out of Canada. I do not propose to repeat my earlier remarks on these specific issues, but I know of some new developments since that earlier debate which I would like to touch upon. They do not relate to the same aspects and I want to suggest that this information has come to me principally as a result of being in close co-operation with the only two truly Canadian forwarders of livestock, and particularly cattle, in Canada. One of them is World Wide

Forwarders based in Farnham, Quebec. They have been the leading forwarders not only in Canada but in North America for a number of years. The other one is a new organization known as Alberta-Canada All Breeds Association, which has recently become active and which operates out of Calgary.
Last December 20, just before we recessed, as a result, I am sure, of my earlier remarks and which were quite specific about Air Canada's air freight policy for livestock, I was supplied with a brief directive from Air Canada with limited information. I want to quote from that information. It is in the form of a very brief message and it is dated December 20. It reads:
Air Canada has a fleet of six DC-8 freighters, all of which may be used for cattle charters. On the average, the air line operates some 50 such charters each year and works with CIDA in the export of Canadian livestock.
For more than two years the air line has used the more efficient and humane loading equipment which permits cattle to be "walked" on to the aircraft.
A number of continuing improvements have been effected over the years as a result of regular meeting with owner and forwarder representative associations.
Air Canada's pricing structure for these charters is competitive with other operators.
A postscript at the bottom of that information sheet says the following:
PWA has not been in the cattle charter business for some time due to a reported heavy loss in this market. Also, the normal advance application to the CTC for operation of a cattle charter is 30 days.
That reference to Pacific Western's experience in hauling live cattle with specially equipped aircraft, which that company had at one time, relates to some of my earlier remarks. It is true that that particular service is no longer operating, because evidently PWA chose to get into passenger service with that particular aircraft. That was PWA's decision, but in the short interval PWA was operating that service PWA demonstrated how to load live cattle on to an aircraft and move them very efficiently. PWA developed the best possible system, and that system is still used by some carriers. It is truly a walk-on system whereby the cattle walk off a cattle liner, up the appropriate chute and right into the aircraft where there are appropriate cross pens in which to contain them.
I want to make some remarks about the message I received. I am sure the information statement was prepared in answer to those earlier remarks of mine. As a result of information I received from World Wide Forwarders operating out of Quebec, it is my understanding that representatives of Air Canada say they are using a walk-on system at Mirabel, but I have gone to some trouble to learn that the situation is simply that they still use a crate system, at least for lighter cattle. I have not been able to find out what they do for heavier cattle, but they insist on a crating system whereby the cattle are loaded into temporary, flimsy crates. They are lifted by forklift high enough to be pushed into the fuselage of the aircraft on a dolly system. After they are inside, they are released, and they walk into the various compartments. That is what Air Canada
January 31, 1978

calls a walk-on system, which is a less than adequate explanation.
As I explained, a true walk-on system is much more efficient. By having the cattle walk off a cattle liner, through an appropriate chute and up into the aircraft it is possible to load a large aircraft in perhaps no more than an hour, or an hour and ten minutes at the most. One can appreciate the extra cost involved in holding up a large aircraft which sometimes requires up to five or six hours to load using the much less efficient system of using crates and forklifts. I was informed that the only time Air Canada used a true walk-on system was when there were snowplowing problems at Mirabel. Arrangements were made to load an aircraft at Dorval. The other system was used, and the operation was much more efficient.
I would like to comment on the statement that Air Canada's pricing structure for these charters is competitive with other operations. I suggest most sincerely that Air Canada is not competitive, especially with regard to large cattle. The experience of the Alberta-Canada All Breeds Association operating out of the Calgary airport is that the bids for proposed contracts for flights out of the Calgary airport by Air Canada were one third higher than those coming from United States carriers for the same job.
These bids were based on Air Canada's using a standard DC-8 with a capacity of 65,000 pounds. I want to report that Air Canada did move about 11 loads with this type of equipment during the month of December out of the Toronto airport. These were mostly lighter weight dairy cattle that were going to the Mediterranean. The reason Air Canada is not competitive with foreign carriers is that while Air Canada's cost per pound may be competitive with other carriers, its cost per head is far from competitive. I suppose the principal reason is that Air Canada's competitors are using larger aircraft which are able to take bigger pay loads. The cost per head can be reduced significantly by using that approach.
However, much more important than being competitive, Air Canada continues to insist on its right of first refusal on all proposed contracts for airlifting of Canadian cattle out of Canadian airports. The only comment which I think is appropriate is that surely this is a dog-in-the-manger attitude which does not help two air forwarders, or more for that matter, who may wish to organize in Canada and to get into what appears to be the very good business of exporting Canada's excellent breeding cattle to a world-wide market.
I suggest that there are some very direct consequences of this right of first refusal upon which Air Canada insists. This information again comes from these two forwarders. World Wide Forwarders is one of the largest and most progressive forwarders in North America, and perhaps in the world. As a result of this policy World Wide has had to acquire its own aircraft. It cannot use its own aircraft out of Canadian airports for the reasons I have cited, so World Wide trucks Canadian cattle it acquires for offshore customers to the United States and then uses its own aircraft and quite a number of other foreign aircraft to complete the job and to forward to customers abroad.
Air Canada
The Alberta-Canada All Breeds Association which operates out of Calgary is presently trucking its cattle from various locations in Alberta, and perhaps from other parts of Western Canada, to Montana. Most of the shipments go to Great Falls, Montana, where they are loaded onto foreign carriers. This group has a contract for about one airload per week for a full year, and possibly considerably more at the completion of that undertaking. All of these types of contracts for airlifting cattle are for foreign customers, and all of them are across at least one ocean. The only practical way to move the cattle is by aircraft.
Both Canadian forwarders are mindful of some of Air Canada's special problems which have developed as a result of limited experience. One of them is a problem regarding ventilation of aircraft when flying livestock. Just shortly before Christmas about half a load-several hundred cattle

died as a result of poor ventilation on one of the trips about which I have been speaking. I suggest that that was the result of lack of experience. It is a poor way to build confidence and to attract Canadian customers. Air Canada has limited experience and not much desire to get into the air freighting of livestock.
Both these truly Canadian forwarders are knowledgeable about the worldwide popularity of and demand for our dairy and beef cattle, and are trying to fit that into their business of forwarding breeding cattle to customers all over the world. This country has built a good reputation for both breeding and dairy cattle over the years, in part because of the high standards imposed by the health of animals branch. Both these forwarders would like to see an air freight carrier-a Boeing 707 or similar wide-bodied aircraft-make weekly shipments of live cattle to Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. They have enough firm orders for several years, but in order to ship once a week out of Calgary, Edmonton and more often from Montreal, they would have to insist on a more efficient walk-on system than Air Canada uses at the present time. If Air Canada is not prepared to supply such a facility then I suggest that foreign carriers be allowed to offer it at Canadian airports.
1 am sure the president of Air Canada, Mr. Claude Taylor, is well aware of these representations as he has received correspondence from both these forwarders and from other Canadian cattle organizations about the situation. His letters, which appear in the flight magazine En Route, indicate his interest in matters relating to the airline. He must be aware of the potential for Canada's balance of trade position through air freighting cattle, since every animal transported goes to an export market. This is a relatively new market which is waiting, even begging, for good Canadian cattle.
In the past few years our cattle industry has been depressed, but this new concept has helped attract foreign customers. The market is there, the price is right, and Air Canada has an obligation to help move the cattle. I suggest that a realistic air

January 31, 1978
Adjournment Motion
freight policy could enhance our total balance of payments picture considerably.
1 have no problem with the Senate amendments to this bill for the reorganization of Air Canada, Mr. Speaker. I think we will have a better organized and better administered national airline as a result of them. I wish to commend the Senate for becoming involved and bringing something of this nature to this House for ratification, and I fully support the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add to the comments of my colleagues on the bill respecting the reorganization of Air Canada. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) brought up an excellent point. Farm income in western Canada has decreased rapidly over the last three years. Many farmers and ranchers have spent years acquiring expertise in the breeding of cattle, hogs, and other livestock, and it seems unfair that we cannot provide the kind of aircraft necessary for this livestock to be exported. This is a business which would help increase prairie farm income.
It is ironic that, as we debate the Senate amendments to the bill to reorganize Air Canada, the government has just approved a new budget for the airlines. The press release I have here indicates that Air Canada's 1978 capital budget for the purchase of new aircraft will be in the neighbourhood of $68.5 million. The capitalization of the airline is not very high and that is why we are now considering amendments to the act-to enable Air Canada to be free of the hold of the CNR and go forward as a Crown corporation. The financial reorganization bill before us reduces Air Canada's debt to equity ratio from the current 95 to 5 to 60 to 40, which is a more traditional situation for North American air carriers. The equity will increase from the current $5 million now held by CNR to $340 million, all held by the Crown corporation, Air Canada.
Some of the amendments proposed and argued by hon. members in the other place were debated very effectively on this side of the House before the bill went to the other place. In particular I should like to refer to the deletion of clause 6(2) which reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may, by order, authorize the Corporation to engage in or carry on any activities not otherwise authorized by this Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. 
Rynard)-Health-Alleged danger to infants from chemicals carried by nursing mothers-Request for study; the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin)-Official Languages-Reported refusal of Ontario to give official status to French language; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-External Affairs-Prime Minister's knowledge that Soviet satellite contained nuclear package.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.
Order No. 2; the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane). Stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order No. 4; the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). Stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order No. 8; the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale). Stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order No. 9; the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle). Stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To save Your Honour reading 15 or 20 orders, I believe there is an understanding that we proceed to No. 29.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that all orders prior to No. 29 shall stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ACT
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West) moved: that Bill C-229, to protect the Canadian environment by instituting mandatory impact assessment procedures prior to the con-
January 31, 1978

struction of installations potentially damaging to the environment, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in an age of supposed rational enlightenment, it is unfortunate that our society still seems able to respond only to crisis demand situations. Yet how many in this room today can remember having heard the word pollution more than 15 years ago, let alone having been actively involved in the alarm that was raised in our society at that time?
I recall being elected to the British Columbia legislature in 1966 without the issue ever being raised in the campaign, let alone on the floor of the House by either the government or the opposition in the ensuing year. However, by 1968-69 the small vocal group of seemingly radical doomsday soothsayers had grown into a large public outcry, leading to public and political pressure and the subsequent beginnings of the legislative process.
By the early seventies a considerable and credible body of scientific and professional environmentalists emerged and gained credibility as well as bureaucratic positioning within governments. Within a decade, society had moved from the more negative expressionism of pollution and severe attack on the great villains, government and industry, and evolved into the more moderate expressions of the word environment and broadening the general perspective, to recognizing that all human activity encroaches on the natural environment, to a recognition of the limits of growth, and to a condemnation of the developed world by the developing nations for its gluttonous consumption, and finally to the concept of a conservation ethic and awareness that big is bad and that we need a reassessment of our entire value system and life style.
Often a recurring trend in film art provides us with a mirror of our current cultural or ethical values. I saw a movie a short time ago that reflected and simplified one such current value. The movie was called "Oh God". The story centred around a young man working in a grocery store who claimed to have heard and seen God, who had asked him to bring the message of the hour to man from God, the basic message being God gave us the world for us to live in and He provided all that we need; all we had to do was make it work. The choice is ours individually and if we so choose it will work well for us, but if we choose to destroy His creations the inevitable doomsday would be upon us. A movie such as this in both form and substance would have been laughed at and mocked out of existence less than a decade ago among the symbols of "Easy Rider" and "Clockwork Orange".
Today, whether it is "Rocky" or "Star Wars" or "Oh God", people are reaching out to the message of that movie because a new generation has been born, educated, and has accepted a new or renewed ethic of conservation. The ethic of pessimism, wanton desecration, and fantasy has passed and a new generation has emerged speaking, believing, and feeling the need to balance and harmonize productivity and consumption with conservation and replenishment.
Environment
This House and this government, as well as the next House and the next government, may well not recognize that before us is in fact an extension of those new or renewed basic values or ethics. Before the next decade has passed this and other legislation based upon these ethics or values will be in place. Consequently any delaying tactics to prevent its passage or broaden its discussion will only be temporary because this piece of legislation in its principles is in tune with its time, it is right morally, and ethically right according to the values of the next generation, if not this generation.
This current generation of legislators has responded to the call of a few radicals and visionaries in an effort to pacify rather than to create from an inner environmental value and conviction, and for this reason, under the pressure of energy demands, unemployment and inflation, the environmental cause may be unfortunately forced to rest a while, but be assured this force will come again with a new inner conviction.
I urge Canadians listening today to give this legislation a chance. Listen to this legislation. Open it for further discussion in order that these basic principles will be recognized by legislators tomorrow as they are being recognized by the legislators today.
We have in the last decade advanced rapidly and progressively. Through this period of rapid growth of environmental technology standards and legislation, while some programs have applied technology successfully, it is time to assess our future direction in restoring and maintaining a harmonious environment.
On the negative side, environmental concerns have been paralleled by decreasing productivity and deterioration of the work ethic. Energy and inflation crises have successfully challenged environmental priorities. The individual has no status in law to come into court and challenge a project unless it is going to damage his own person or his own property. Most legislation created by governments tends to be after-the-fact legislation, and at the federal level the Fisheries Act still remains the only effective veto relative to developmental projects.
On the more positive side, environmental concerns are firmly entrenched in both the public and the private sector, and while legislation remains largely toothless, it does enunciate wordy principles and has resulted in a firmly entrenched professional bureaucracy.
How many times does one hear citizens declaring that it is useless to protest or to take action because the government or other institutions will not listen; an indication of apathy? Toffler's book "Future Shock" supports the theory that the individual whose role in society has become increasingly insignificant, whose sphere of personal action has been reduced, perceives most of social reality as being beyond personal control.
Decentralization of organization must take place. There must emerge a form of redistribution of power to individuals and communities. Today most things are done through organizations, but human beings are in these organizations. They
January 31, 1978

Environment
can, and they must insist that organizations are meant to serve men, not men to serve organizations.
To ensure that there is active public participation, one is in need of two elements. There must exist a legal basis for participation and there must be mechanisms for public involvement. If one studies the various pieces of federal environmental legislation in Canada, such as the federal government's Clean Air Act, and Water Act, one realizes that citizens are not guaranteed the right to participate in public and private decisions concerning resource development and management. The Canadian legal system does not guarantee or even promise those rights.
The convening of public hearings, such as the Berger Commission, is a discretionary power given to an official, not a requirement. Only the federal government's Northern Inland Waters Act manifests any commitment to participation by the public in making of environmental management decisions.
Section 26 of the Canada Water Act (1970) states that the minister may establish advisory committees if he considers them desirable. Ele may appoint to these committees such persons as he desires, and he is under no obligation to be in any way influenced by the advice given to him by the committees. The Clean Air Act does not contemplate any compulsory citizen participation in the making of any environmental quality decisions. There is a provision in the National Energy Board Act for the holding of public hearings, but the statute does not define what procedure is to be followed. The Board may determine its own procedure.
After the release of the Environment Canada report on ecological consequences of the James Bay hydro dam system, the federal government publicized a new administrative program called EARP. The Minister of the Environment, at his discretion, could call for an environmental impact assessment prior to the construction of a federal project. This policy mechanism is a false front. The government can talk about its commitment to the protection of the environment. However, it never has to put that commitment to work.
If a political party holds a majority, a minister is not bound to act on regulations which do not have the clout of statute. As usual, it is the individual without political or economic power who loses. My bill would bring the decision-making process out of the smoke-filled back rooms and into the open. The individual citizen's rights would be guaranteed.
The ineffectiveness of the existing regulations is compounded by what governments have chosen to leave out. They ask only for a narrowly defined environmental study, whereas in my bill the environment includes the human population. Another problem of definition exists because the term "projects" is used in the regulations. Undertakings other than projects, such as policies or legislative proposals, are therefore not included, and when a policy proposal has achieved the "project" stage it means the cabinet has already given the green light, so the assessment procedure becomes an exercise or a detailing of consequences. Not only that, it is a gross

waste of public money and constitutes an added cost which should never be incurred. Environmental assessments which are not carried out before decisions are made are, in effect, valueless, nothing but sand in the gears.
Of graver concern is the complete lack of an opportunity for the public to contribute to the decision-making process. The minister may sit in his office, read the proponent's report, approve it, and the next minute the concrete starts to flow.
There is a substantial discretionary power in the hands of the proponent of a project. A federal agency or department, or a private company operating on a federal grant, has the discretion itself to decide that its proposal will have practically no environmental impact. If the proponent makes that decision, and if it sticks, he can go ahead without being subject to the impact assessment procedures. Again, if he can satisfy the screening committee that the environmental impact will only be minor, he can also go ahead without assessment. And even if the assessment procedure applies, it is the proponent, not the department, not an outside agency, which prepares the initial assessment. The environmental assessment panel sets down guidelines, but the proponent himself determines how those guidelines apply to the initial assessment.
The "front program" which the government has supposedly adopted and which will supposedly assure that no program will go ahead in the absence of an environmental assessment, has now proven to be ineffective. The fact is that such projects do go ahead without assessment. This is made possible because of the discretionary powers left with ministers. Each year more than 1,000 projects are screened for potential adverse environmental effects. Time has shown that on the average only five per year are deemed to have significant environmental effects, qualifying them for an initial study.
The powers of the assessment panel are limited. For one thing, it has the capacity only to review impact assessments prepared by the proponent. Then, if it does find fault, it has only the power to advise, and it can be ignored or overruled by the minister or by the cabinet.
In the case of multi-phase projects, it appears to be the practice of the Department of the Environment to conduct environmental impact assessments one stage at a time. In practice this means that if the first phase of a multi-phase project can be cleared environmentally the whole thing will go ahead, because a proponent will argue that so much has been invested in the development of the first stage that the investment commitment should outweigh any adverse environmental factors which appear later on. That seems to be the approach the Department of the Environment is taking to projects at both Wreck Cove in Nova Scotia, and in northwestern British Columbia, in the minister's own riding.
Bill C-229 would ensure that undertakings in which the federal government has any type of interest are planned with due consideration for the environment. My bill has several key provisions which fill gaps in existing federal environmental legislation and administrative processes. They are as follows:
January 31, 1978

1.	Any undertaking by the Government of Canada, or under its legislative authority or funded by it in any manner, must submit an impact assessment to the Minister of the Environment. This is not spelled out clearly in existing legislation.
2.	All persons should have access to the impact assessment. At the present time information is withheld, or can be withheld; the public is not allowed access to scientific information connected with impact assessment.
3.	A public hearing at which any person may participate must be held before the minister makes a decision. At the present time there is no provision that any such hearing must take place. Decisions can be made and projects completed in the absence of any public participation or any public hearing.
4.	Funds provided by the proponent should be made available at the minister's discretion to responsible participants acting in the public interest. This would assist in ensuring full, intelligent, and competent discussion. As things are, many people are in a position to see that something is being done which is wrong. They feel it is wrong, but they lack the confidence or the information which would enable them to prove their case. Information should be provided by the government or by the proponents of the plan to be used by those who contend that the project should not proceed and need this information to prove their point.
I am concerned that environmental legislation is presently being used only as "sand-in-the-gears" whose result is to slow projects down or to make them more expensive. Very often responsibility for taking environmental decisions is passed from one minister to another, and in the end nobody makes a decision. As I say, it is merely sand in the gears. That is not the case with my bill; the minister could make such a provision. Provision is also made for class actions. Any person could appeal the minister's decision in court.
The concept behind environmental impact assessment is rooted in the moral obligation to accept the interdependence of the earth's ecosystem, and act accordingly. Man must junk his faith in his own dominance to the trash can of narrowly conceived ideas. Everything and anything can only take so much kicking around. The vulnerability of man stems from his pressure upon and manipulation of the environment. Technology will not be able to fabricate substitutes which yield the same satisfaction for natural habitat resources which man has exploited to the point of non-productibility or irreversibility.
If we examine our material progress to date, the inescapable fact is that the largest part has come from the conversion of our natural resources into-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless he may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West.
Environment


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What then could be more logical than a legislative mechanism which helps to safeguard the rights of individuals who derive some form of wealth from the services of our natural resources?
In the recently introduced nuclear control bill provision is made for public hearings-a reaction to public protestations of nuclear facilities being put up in their backyard without public debate. Not very much is spelled out in the legislation as to how public hearings are to be conducted, but at least there is provision for them. At least there is some minor sign that the government remains open, although largely ignorant of the real requirements of an environmental impact assessment.
There is some minimal amount of radiation associated with a uranium mine, nuclear reactor, or a coal-fired electrical generation plant. Apparently the number of premature deaths caused by the entire coal fuel cycle is much higher than that considered as possible for a uranium fuel cycle.
If the federal government decides to help develop coal generated electricity, are those people potentially affected by, say, coal ash, to be treated in a different manner than those potential victims of the uranium fuel cycle's radiation? I think not. Both groups should have the opportunity to participate in a public hearing, a right my legislation would give them.
Public hearings are not perfect policy-making devices, and we all know that because we have attended or participated in them many times as politicians. What results from a public hearing is a variety of different, often self-interested views, some facts about and perhaps some novel untested solutions to a problem. But public hearings do perform several useful functions; gathering information, increasing public participation and acceptability of decisions, and assisting decision-makers, the minister and his civil servants, to choose from different alternatives that may be put forward.
Why is the government so afraid of information? Why is it so afraid of facts? If that is all this legislation does, it could produce information to improve a decision and to make sure a decision is morally right.
Legislation of the sort I have proposed requires comprehensive freedom of information laws. Without access to government research documents, the public's hands are tied. An excellent example is the attempt, which I brought up recently in the national resources standing committee, of citizens trying to prepare good briefs respecting the nuclear waste issue without access to many government documents which are now classified confidential. These 30 environmental groups from across Canada were notified only two weeks ahead that they could appear and present a brief before the committee. They are told that they cannot have the information that is available to the committee, the same scientific government information-"make your brief but get your own material." Why, if this is public information, is it not available to all the people making objections? It seems almost ridiculous to believe that government in this day and age would withhold such information.
80031 -t

January 31, 1978
Environment
I do not want this legislation to be used to stall worthy projects solely because some minuscule faction deems it unworthy. In Bill C-229 I have tried to ensure that an efficient and fair examination be given to all federal government undertakings which have been deemed to affect the environment in some manner. I am more than willing to listen to any group or individual who has ideas on how to speed up the process while still attaining the legislation's objectives.
Bill C-229 would not bloat the bureaucracy, because the civil servants who administer the existing environmental assessment review would instead carry out the provisions of my bill. Several provinces, Australia, many United States states, and the U.S. federal government have legislation that requires government departments within their jurisdiction to go through some sort of environmental assessment review process. I have taken the best from their legislation, discarded the worst, and added some of my own ideas. I believe strongly that if not the bill then the subject matter should be passed on to the committee stage.
I have dozens of letters of support for my bill. Many groups, ranging from oil companies to environmental organizations, want to appear before the standing committee to discuss environmental impact assessments. They want to appear because this subject is timely. Has this government its ear to hear? The government would have a chance to defend its new EARP program and to find out if it is lacking, where it might act and where it might change. I think it would be an objective kind of committee, that it would be open to new ideas, to the flow of new information. The government has nothing to fear, it has only to gain and to learn.
If at least the subject matter of Bill C-229 were sent to committee, we could get going on this issue now and not before it is too late.
Courage is often associated with standing firm against opposition. Such courage is as important today as ever. But perhaps more important today is the courage to move, to innovate, to make decisions. In the emerging society of today, the decisions are becoming much more complex. Decisions call for inventiveness as well as firmness. Only by combining sensitivity to human needs with rigorous understanding of social processes can we make sound decisions. Decisions of the future must be worked out by men and women at their jobs in a world of specialized functions.
The major decisions of our time concern far-ranging issues of the use of power, the relation of men to machines, the relation of men to environment, the establishing of freedom in an increasingly organized world. These decisions must be made by men such as ourselves, gathered here today, men who exercise power and live day in and day out in the midst of their responsibilities.
We need criticism and help from those who see issues from varied perspectives. We need the advice of scientists. But, most important of all we need the wisdom and the participation of people as well as the insight of specialists. All people share the risks of our decisions and all people have a right to participate in the shaping of those decisions.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, protection of the Canadian environment is an issue that concerns all Canadians, and I welcome the hon. member's proposal as another expression of that concern. As you know, the government has already taken positive steps to meet this issue through the formation of the Department of the Environment, and the establishment of an environmental assessment and review process through a cabinet decision in December, 1973.
The process covers activities and projects initiated by federal departments and agencies and those involving federal funds or property. Federal departments must examine their planned proposals and refer those with potentially significant environmental effects to the environmental assessment panel in the Department of the Environment for review. The panel sets guidelines for the preparation of an environmental impact statement by the project proponent, and releases this statement for public evaluation. After reviewing the environmental impact statement and obtaining the views of the public through hearings, the panel recommends appropriate action to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) based on the environmental consequences involved. The decision to implement the panel's recommendations is made by the Minister of the Environment and his colleagues whose departments are initiating or sponsoring the proposals.
There are now 21 such projects under review, and these include the gas pipeline from the Arctic to southern Canada proposed by Polar Gas, the extension to the Vancouver International Airport by the Department of Transport, and the development of uranium refineries in Saskatchewan and Ontario by Eldorado Nuclear Limited. We can all appreciate the complexities involved in projects of this size and nature, as well as the length of time required to produce a meaningful environmental assessment.
Our present assessment process is a very flexible instrument which can be adjusted easily to accommodated required changes. Based on present experience with the assessment process, changes are being considered now which will broaden the capabilities of the environmental assessment panel to review projects that are referred by federal departments and agencies. We plan to keep the assessment process under continuing review to determine further adjustments or changes which may be needed to make it as effective as possible.
Unfortunately, Bill C-229 does not improve the government's ability to assess the environmental consequences of projects for which it is responsible. The bill proposes to give federal courts an appellate decision-making power on the merits of a proposed action. In this connection, I should like to refer to the following provisions which relate to environmental assessment decisions made by the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc). Clause 19 of the bill reads as follows:
Any person may, within 10 days of the minister's decision, apply to the Federal Court for a review of that decision.
January 31, 1978

Clause 20 of the bill reads as follows:
The Federal Court shall determine the matter de novo, and may examine the environmental impact assessment, the review, any submission made to the minister and such further material as is necessary in the opinion of the court to reach a decision.
Clause 22. (1) reads as follows:
The Federal Court shall determine the matters in question within a reasonable period of time after Final day of the hearing.
Traditionally our courts have intervened to set aside administrative decision where the procedure required by law has not been followed or where an administrative decision is shown, on the basis of the evidence adduced, to be plainly arbitrary or capricious. But it has never been the practice of our courts, nor do our judges have special competence, to substitute their value judgments for those of others. To require our courts to undertake such a responsibility would be inconsistent with our system of democratic government and would be an inappropriate use of the judiciary.
The author of Bill C-229 does not appear to have considered carefully how a federal environmental impact assessment act will fit with existing statutory responsibilities such as, for example, the responsibilities of certain regulatory bodies to take account of environmental concerns. Is it intended to repeal the statutory responsibility of the Yukon and Northwest Territories water boards which were established under the Northern Inland Waters Act? Those boards were established to provide, pursuant to section 9 of the act, the following:
- the conservation, development and utilization of the water resources of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories in a manner that will provide the optimum benefit therefrom for all Canadians and for the residents of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories in particular.
Is it intended to remove from the National Energy Board its perceived statutory responsibility under section 44 of the National Energy Board Act to take account of environmental concerns in deciding whether to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the construction of interprovincial pipelines, which is a perceived statutory responsibility that has caused the board to require applicants for such certificate to undertake environmental impact assessments?
These examples illustrate the need to consider carefully how the requirements of a federal environmental impact assessment act should dovetail with existing statutory responsibilities, both federal and provincial, which require regulatory bodies to satisfy themselves regarding environmental matters. I am sure all hon. members would agree that needless duplication of time and money should be avoided.
Many of the provisions of Bill C-229 have been borrowed from existing legislation, such as the United States national environmental policy act and the environmental assessment act, 1975, of Ontario. These provisions were tossed into the pot, as it were, without due consideration having been given to the purpose and scheme of the acts from which they were borrowed. The decision-making power Bill C-299 would propose to give the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment has been evidently borrowed from the environmental assessment act, 1975, of Ontario. However, it should be noted that the
Environment
word "undertaking" in the Ontario act is much narrower in scope than the scope given to the word in Bill C-229. The Ontario act defines "undertaking" as an "enterprise or activity." At present it applies only to enterprises, activities or projects by or on behalf of the government of Ontario, and by public bodies or municipalities. The proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor required by section 3(b) of the act, making the act applicable to any major commercial or business enterprise or activity designated by the regulations-for example, projects by the private sector-has not yet been made. For that matter, neither have the regulations.
The definition proposed in section 2(d) of Bill C-229 for environmental impact assessment is taken, with the substitution of the word "undertaking" for the word "action", from section 102(2)C of the United States national environmental policy act. However, this definition is preceded in the NEPA document by the following statement:
The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible-
(2) all agencies of the federal government shall

(c) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment a detailed statement by the responsible official-
As will be apparent when considered in context, the five point enumeration in NEPA is not intended to define what an environmental impact assessment statement should contain. The contents of any environmental impact statement ought to be based on what is being assessed and not on some abstract definition of what should be contained in the statement in which the assessment is written up. The United States council of environmental quality, CEQ, which was established by NEPA, has published extensive guidelines designed to assist federal agencies in preparing environmental impact statements. The latest was issued in 1975.
In conclusion, Bill C-229 will not produce an effective and efficient environmental assessment procedure. It does not improve in any way the government's existing capability in this area which is provided by the environmental assessment and review process.
[ Translation]


Mr.   Albert@: Mr. Speaker, I see that the opposition is very anxious about this bill and that it would like the House to proceed immediately to a vote. As chairman of the committee on fisheries and forestry, which has jurisdiction over environmental matters, I am surprised to see how anxious the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) is for this bill to be put to a vote when-perhaps 1 should not say so here-sometimes we need several sittings of the committee to pass certain bills.
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague for Fraser Valley West because, as I have just said, he is a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and is greatly concerned with the environment. It could perhaps be said that, as all members of the committee are aware, he shows a certain obstinacy about this problem which greatly
80031-1 t V2

January 31, 1978
Environment
concerns him, as it concerns of course every member of the House and every Canadian. The environment in which we are all condemned to live on this earth-as I see the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), I would even say in this valley of sorrows-the protection of this environment is a daily concern for all Canadians and especially the federal government, and Bill C-229 submitted for our consideration by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West expresses once again this concern, not only of the representatives of the people, but also of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, as you and all members of the House who insist on being kept well informed are aware, the present government has made positive efforts to meet the concerns of Canadians expressed by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West in Bill C-229, first by creating the Department of Environment, and they by establishing in December 1973 an environmental assessment and review process. I believe that the French word "environnemental" is rather modern and that it was not accepted before 1960. This word was not used at that time, but it is now accepted by the Academie canadienne-fran$aise and the Academie franchise.
From the very beginning, Environment Canada has endeavoured to measure the level of pollution caused by the federal government. It also assesses the projects in which it participates financially in one way or another so that these projects will comply with the guidelines aimed at eliminating or restricting contamination of the environment.
In 1972, the cabinet approved a recommendation from a ministerial committee to the effect that the environmental impact of any new project of the federal government should be scrutinized. It is precisely in light of that policy of the Canadian government that Friday last week I asked the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question concerning an issue of considerable interest for us in Magdalen Islands, that is the possible effects of the development of salt deposits discovered there.
In fact, if the present government of the province of Quebec does not delay the project, the salt mine discovered in Magdalen Islands should become productive by the end of 1978. Being ever optimistic I would say to my friend the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle) that to haul that salt away we shall necessarily have to build harbour facilities as those deposits are located on an island. The project of the provincial government involving the financial participation of the federal government implies the building of a deep water wharf on a site which fishermen and municipal authorities consider detrimental to fish and particularly lobster stocks.
As we know, lobster fishing is the main source of income for Magdalen Islands fishermen and residents. We should be very careful and study seriously the concerns expressed by Fishermen. Since the federal government will contribute financially to the project it wonders if in view of that policy and that process it should not initiate an environmental study in this area. I am told that, according to provincial experts, there is

no risk for lobster stocks but fishermen who are sceptical by nature do not readily believe this assertion of the so-called experts from the provincial environment department.
Pollution is not our only source of environmental concern, Mr. Speaker, although more importance seems to be given to air and water pollution. It is not the only sphere of federal action in this matter. There are a number of other factors which must be taken into consideration. Among other things, the damaging effect of physical obstacles on the water community and the migratory paths of various wildlife, as well as the irresponsible development of non renewable resources, including land.
Thus on December 20, 1973 a cabinet decision instituted the environmental assessment and review process so that, first, the environmental factor would be taken into consideration at the planning stage of new federal projects, programs or activities, all the while respecting provincial jurisdictions, and second, so as to submit all potentially hazardous projects to an environmental assessment prior to irrevocable commitments or decisions. Third, to take into account the results of such an assessment in the planning, decision making and implementation process.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, despite the importance of Bill C-229 introduced by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), that the steps taken so far by the government of Canada meet the concerns he expresses in his bill. Earlier he criticized the Clean Air Act and other statutes, saying they are not mandatory. But I am surprised to see that a Progressive Conservative like the hon. member for Fraser Valley West in particular should always want to impose some restriction such as that on the freedom of the people in Canada. I do not criticize his position on the protection of our environment but the way he wants to stop everything by mandatory and coercive measures, if I may put it that way. And that is characteristic of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, as I said earlier. He will not let go. I indicated at the beginning of my remarks what his attitude was in this area at the meetings of the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, which also includes environment. As my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. Anderson) pointed out earlier in his enthusiasm to support the cause he has always felt strongly about, I believe this bill derives from certain pieces of legislation already in existence in Ontario and to the south but he arranged them to suit his purpose and I believe that is why we have here a provision that could run counter to certain customs in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that today everybody is concerned with the quality of life, and Canadian society, as all societies facing this problem, is wondering what decisions should be made. I think that survival is also included in quality of life, and I believe that people must have the means to survive and earn their living. For some fifteen years pollution and all those things resembling pollution have rightly been the subject of considerable concern. We keep hearing today about the environmental impact which might ensue from given projects
January 31, 1978

scheduled for certain areas in need of regional or industrial development.
What are governments doing about that problem? They are going to do what they have done till today and what the hon. member for Fraser Valley West suggests, but at what expense? At the expense of not only money but time and many speeches. During that time there are projects, for example in a non-polluted area such as ours-I am talking about the Gaspe area and a good part of the province of Quebec not located in the surroundings of Canada's metropolis-there are projects that could have been born in a very short delay but which are being postponed because of unnecessary complications imposed by certain statutes because of the effects on the environment.
Which is more important: to see to it that our citizens are fed or to set aside development projects which could help them feed themselves while bringing them the ideal quality of life environmentalists hope for? I can understand that the problem is a difficult one to solve for the governments, I understand its importance and I do not want to criticize those who-


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Refer it to the committee.


Mr. Bechard:: I did not say a word when the hon. member for Fraser Valley West spoke, but I would like him to understand that I do not oppose what steps are taken to preserve the quality of life and increase it, if possible. But I do wonder about all that is being done at the present time, to obstruct, in some instances, projects that would allow a whole area to survive. Because of the problems and dangers the industry in question could lead to in 15, 20, 25 or 50 years hence, projects are dropped.
It may be that we have not done enough, that we did not utter that word "environment" early enough, that we did not concern ourselves with it. Neither our former governments nor the people have worried long enough about our environment. But one must also realize that Canada has not always been an industrialized country as it is today. Perhaps we did go through the transition between the society in which we lived before and the industrialized society we have today and which we have known now for a good many years without caring too much for the consequences and the impact that modern developments would have on the environment and the quality of our life.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I could perhaps elaborate even further but I want to pay tribute not only to the member but first of all to the present Canadian government and to the precedent it has set by the work it has accomplished in that direction. One will understand that it is very costly for an industrial to transform his plant overnight so that it may cease polluting or that it may lessen its pollution of the environment. In common language, we say that one must use his better judgment in certain cases, but I think that it is what the present government has done and in the case of Bill C-229, which is praiseworthy as far as the principles are concerned, I would not go so far as saying that it is premature, but I think it is superfluous given the safeguards and present legislation
Air Canada
that already exist. I would like to see the member for Fraser Valley West discuss this bill if it were presented by the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc). I would like to see if this bill would be passed within the hour as the hon. member wished it would be when I rose to take the floor and comment on this bill. I imagine we would be debating it as long as we debated the Clean Air Act and I think he realized that when the committee studied that bill. Again, Mr. Speaker, I commend the initiative taken by the hon. member who is very active in this field within the committee and at the same time I wish to praise the government which is initiating measures that will ensure us a better quality of life as advocated in Bill C-229.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The time allotted for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-3, respecting the reorganization of Air Canada, be read the second time and amendments made by the Senate be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. At five o'clock the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) had the floor.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, when private members' hour began I was discussing the deletion of clause 6(2) of the bill which reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may, by order, authorize the Corporation to engage in or carry on any activities not otherwise authorized by this Act.
The deletion of this clause is a welcome move as it granted undue power to the governor in council to enlarge the scope or completely change the nature of the activities carried on by Air Canada without coming back to parliament for authority. This is a dangerous precedent and if the clause were enacted it could weaken parliamentary power. In addition, Senator Gro-sart pointed out in the deliberations in the other place that this clause contravenes the government's basic guidelines for crown corporations. The Privy Council office document entitled

January 31, 1978
Air Canada
"Crown Corporations, Direction, Control, Accountability- Government of Canada Proposals 1977", states:
It is commonly understood that crown corporations, although largely independent of parliamentary scrutiny and controls, are still in the final analysis instruments of parliament. Logic then dictates that parliament should exercise what might be called the shareholder's prerogative with respect to crown corporations on behalf of the Canadian public.
The message contained in this policy statement is clearly that as long as a corporation is a Crown corporation, its authority for action rests with parliament. By removing the necessity of dealing with parliament, this clause may well provide Air Canada with a certain amount of added flexibility. However, as long as Air Canada remains a Crown corporation, its flexibility must of necessity be restricted.
The controversy over this one clause highlights the conflict of ideas concerning what should be the limits and bounds of a Crown corporation. Passage of Bill C-3, in its present form, could serve to cloud further the distinction between Crown corporations and private corporations. One of the major provisions of Bill C-3 grants to Air Canada the power to embark on auxiliary projects, other than air transportation, such as the management of hotels and travel agencies and perhaps even extending to trucking. In April of 1974, I rose in the House to speak on a similar bill dealing with financial arrangements for the CNR and argued that the CNR had no mandate to become embroiled in the hotel and real estate businesses.
I would like to restate my thinking in a nutshell. A crown corporation should not become involved in areas where private enterprise has the willingness and the wherewithal to provide the service or the product. In the Canadian context, private firms have almost invariably provided a better service and done a better job of running business than government.
Given the exemplary record of CNR with regard to hotel management, allowing Air Canada to get into this business gives me room for great concern. The original mandate of Air Canada as a Crown corporation was to provide safe and efficient air service both within and outside this country. The business of Air Canada was seen to be the air business. It is my strong belief that the original mandate of this corporation should be strictly adhered to.
During the debate this past fall on Bill C-3, many members from the Edmonton area raised the question of the difficulties which lie with the Edmonton international airport. By virtue of clause 6(1 )(b) and (c), the government will allow the airlines to build facilities to help in their operations. My contention is that the government should allow the airlines more freedom in discussing what type of terminals they will generally have to service the public. If they were given that opportunity, I think you would see much less in the way of grandiose structures such as Mirabel and Calgary and perhaps a great deal more efficient structures wherein the landing fees, and so on, would not be so expensive for the airlines.
I wish to mention two areas of concern to me and perhaps suggest to the minister how he can follow this up. The first is

the problem of preclearance at Edmonton International Airport. Calgary and Edmonton were both to get preclearance at about the same time. The problem is that the facilities at Edmonton International Airport are incapable of handling this at this time. Budgetary restraints mean that more money cannot be provided at the present time.
I suggest to the minister that in order to provide these facilities in time for the Commonwealth Games this summer he attempt to negotiate with the United States air carriers to see if they will provide preclearance personnel to Edmonton on the basis of cheap, temporary facilities being set up now with the promise that, as soon as budgetary restraints allow the building of permanent facilities, these will be put in place. I feel they may look at that type of suggestion, particularly if we say it will be within one or two years of the time of the promise.
The other problem is customs clearance after arrival at the airport. I want briefly to state what happened to one of my constituents. I will not get too deeply into this because my colleagues from Edmonton have already stated this problem bluntly and seriously. I quote from a letter that I recently received:
My wife and I recently had the unfortunate experience of having to clear Canadian customs at the Edmonton international airport. I say unfortunate because there were approximately 440 other people on our flight also trying to clear. We were all forced up one escalator into a room that was overflowing with people and only the quick action of a fellow passenger, in turning off the escalator, averted what could have been a serious accident with people unable to get off the moving stairs because of the full room.
Ministry of Transport officials in Edmonton state that this facility for customs preclearance was designed for a Vanguard capable of carrying about 90 passengers. Today arriving at that terminal are 747s carrying over 400 people. It can be seen that even with the $400,000 allowed to expand this facility temporarily, the problem still exists. There is a great need for something to be done very quickly to alleviate this problem.
One amendment to clause 6(2) restricts the ability of Air Canada to go beyond subclauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) so far as what they can do in the way of expansion without coming to government. Herein lies the problem of Air Canada's intended purchase of Nordair. Before such a purchase can be made and because of amendments to the act, they should come before a parliamentary committee in order that it can deal with the reasons why Air Canada would like to get into the regional air carrier business.
Throughout the history of regional air carriers in Canada there has been a problem. From their earliest beginnings as bush pilot operations, these airlines have typified for many the spirit of adventure that has made our country what it is today. Nordair has been no exception. In 1968, 21 years after the beginnings of Nordair, it was the first airline to land a jet aircraft in the Northwest Territories.
The policy statement of regional airlines set forth by the Minister of Transport in 1966 outlined the role which regional airlines would be permitted to play in the near future. The regionals were to provide regular route operations into the
January 31, 1978

north and operate local and regional routes to complement the main carriers. It was a distinct policy which was somewhat refined in 1969 by the designation of definite geographic areas in each region.
Air Canada's intended purchase of Nordair is a concern for me. It means the elimination of a small but very efficient regional air carrier, a competitor, and the intrusion of a strictly mainline air carrier into the regional business.
Nordair has provided excellent service to the public of eastern Ontario and northwestern Quebec. It has fulfilled a quite separate function from that being fulfilled by Air Canada. My worry is that the Air Canada takeover may weaken the traditional commitment of Nordair to its travelling public. It may lead to an unfortunate abandonment of low profit routes.
I have put forward a number of my concerns about the Air Canada bill. I do not intend to outline those concerns that have already been covered by my colleagues. I just want to make one last comment regarding the profitability of Air Canada.
It concerns me somewhat that the management of Air Canada would provide air passes to their employees on other than a standby basis. If we want to reward our employees for productivity, that is a good thing to do. Obviously the productivity of Air Canada has increased in the last year. Their profits show that. However, providing employees with passes would average about $300 per person; if they are provided also to wives or husbands or relatives, the number could go as high as 40,000. That would almost eat up the total profit this airline accumulated in the past year.
Something else that bothers me is there is no stipulation that the pass must be used in Canada. The deficit in the tourist industry in this country in 1971 was $202 million. It is calculated to be $1.3 billion today. We must take a careful look at the decisions made by the Corporation.
We are glad to see in the bill a clause providing that Air Canada's report must be brought before the transport committee each year. After all, we do represent the shareholders, and Crown corporations are still responsible to the parliament of Canada. May I add that I am pleased that the other place saw fit to make these amendments; we in this party thought they were very necessary at the time we were discussing second reading.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a few brief comments to make on Bill C-3. I note the measure authorizes Air Canada to engage in a wider range of activities having to do, for example, with hotels and travel agencies. I commend our caucus critic, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), on the important role he played in the discussion of this legislation. At the committee level he proposed many amendments, and a good many of the amendments put forward by my party were accepted. The bill has been returned to the House from the Senate because one
Air Canada
amendment which we proposed was not accepted by the House of Commons.
Among the positive proposals made by the Conservative party in the committee was that the annual report of Air Canada be referred to a standing committee on an annual basis. In this connection it is noteworthy that the corporation's annual report has not been before a committee since November, 1973. Also, we would have enshrined in legislation a provision that Air Canada should have due regard to sound business principles and, in particular, to the contemplation of profit. Mr. Pratte, the former chairman of Air Canada, always complained that he did not really know what the purpose of the corporation was.
We on this side are glad the Senate saw fit to eliminate clause 6(2) from the legislation and that the minister has seen fit to support this recommendation. I will put the pertinent part of the clause on record. It stated that the governor-incouncil "may by order authorize the corporation to engage in or carry on activities not otherwise authorized by this act." It is obvious that undue powers would have been given to the cabinet or to the governor in council. We in this party have always believed in parliamentary control.
While this legislation was before the Senate it is interesting to note that the secretary of Air Canada had this to say about clause 6(2):
The wording and the concept was not suggested by Air Canada; it was proposed by the government itself in the original drafting as a means of avoiding having to go back to parliament to clarify a point which was really something which could be handled administratively in the context of the broad powers given to the corporation.
This was something which the government itself wished to see included in the bill so that it would not be obliged to come back to parliament to enlarge the responsibilities of Air Canada. It exemplifies an attitude which the administration has so often taken. Ministers opposite prefer passing orders-in-council to the parliamentary process. In many ways the actions they have taken amount to a sell-out of the parliamentary process, and clause 6(2) is a fine example.
Going back to the year 1972 we find that something like 3,326 orders in council were passed, only 653 of which were published in the Canada Gazette. This is cause for alarm and consternation among those of us who want to preserve and enhance the parliamentary process. It amounts to an abuse of the order in council procedure inasmuch as it is a circumvention of the parliamentary process.
We see evidence of this approach in other areas. There is a committee going around the country dealing with the subject of national unity. We in this party said it ought to be a parliamentary committee so that concerned individuals throughout Canada could speak directly to their elected representatives and feel they were participating in our democratic process. That is why I am so encouraged that the Senate should have seen fit to return this bill with clause 6(2) eliminated from it. Among other things, it shows the value of the Senate, whose members have a very useful role to play in

January 31, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
our democratic process. I commend them for amending the bill in this way.
I wish now to underline some of the points made by my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) when he was dealing with some of the facilities available at Edmonton international airport, specifically the customs service and preclearance services. We have been allocated $500,000 to construct these temporary facilities. At one time we were given a commitment that some $22 million would be spent on upgrading. This is the year of the Commonwealth Games. As was pointed out by my hon. friend, it is essential there should be facilities at Edmonton airport to accommodate the visitors which are expected.
I should like to reinforce the proposal made by my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) give an undertaking to United States firms that we shall have the necessary facilities at the airport, and in a year or two, permanent facilities for customs and preclearance, so the services needed for the Commonwealth Games will be there at least on a temporary basis this year.
To come back to Bill C-3, we in this party generally support the legislation. We feel it will serve our national air carrier well, enabling Air Canada, in turn, to serve the general public better.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-2 respecting the administration and development of certain fishing and recreational harbours in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with members on the opposite side 1 request unanimous consent of the House to move an amendment to Bill C-2.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I just wish to confirm that consultations have been held on this side concerning the remarks made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), and we give consent to the moving of an amendment at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 am advised that in order to pass this amendment we need the unanimous consent of the House. Do we have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-2, an Act respecting the administration and development of certain fishing and recreational harbours in Canada, be amended by adding immediately after line 22 at page 13 the following new clause:
Repeal
"29. (1) The Belleville Harbour Commissioners Act, chapter 34 of the Statutes of Canada, 1952, is repealed.
Repeal
(2)	The Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour Commissioners Act, chapter 55 of the Statutes of Canada, 1912, is repealed.
Administration, property, rights and actions
(3)	On the coming into force of this section,
(a)	the harbour of Belleville described in the Act repealed by subsection (1) and the harbour of Winnipeg and St. Boniface described in the Act repealed by subsection (2) shall be under the control and administration of the Minister for all the purposes of this Act;
(b)	all real and personal property owned by a Corporation established by an Act repealed by subsection (1) or (2) shall be deemed to be owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada and shall be under the control and administration of the Minister for all the purposes of this Act;
(c)	all rights, obligations and liabilities of a Corporation established by an Act repealed by subsection (1) or (2) shall become rights, obligations and liabilities of Her Majesty in right of Canada; and
(d)	any action or proceeding pending by or against a Corporation established by an Act repealed by subsection (1) or (2) may be taken up or continued by or against the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada."
and by renumbering clause 29 as clause 30.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before the House passes this report stage amendment to Bill C-2 I wonder if there is someone over there who has not yet spoken and who might be in a position to answer a question or two about it.
If my reading of the material in front of us is correct, what is now proposed to be written into Bill C-2 was already proposed to be a part of Bill C-6. Bill C-6 was a piece of legislation regarding Canadian ports. Under that bill the operation of certain harbours such as the Belleville harbour and the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour was to come under the direction of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). It seems now, with Bill C-6 not having been passed that the switching of the control of these two harbours is being made to Bill C-2, which puts them under the authority of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc). What I should like to know is whether I am understanding the situation correctly.
Even more important than that I should like to know if there have been consultations with the authorities in Belleville and in the Winnipeg area with regard to this change. Are the present harbour commissioners in Belleville and the present harbour commissioners in Winnipeg and St. Boniface, even though it is now all one city, satisfied with this change? I suppose a prior question would be in these terms: Are they satisfied with losing their local control? Obviously that has been decided; the government is going to make the change. Now we have a sort of change on change. Bill C-6 takes control of those harbours away from the local bodies and gives it to the Minister of Transport. Now we are calling them recreational harbours instead of commercial harbours and giving the control of these harbours to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment.
January 31, 1978

I am not standing here making an argument one way or the other, but I do think with this kind of a change being made there ought to be some explanation of it. I hope somebody over there is in a position to give us that explanation.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to confirm that, in order to expedite the measure and assure that these two facilities or ports are dealt with in the best way for the developing of the fishing and recreational aspects of these harbours, which are the predominant ones, they are now included in this bill by this amendment. The intention all along under Bill C-6 had been to take them out from under commission operation. It was certainly not to put them under the new commissions that are proposed to be formed for basically major commercial ports throughout Canada. There is general satisfaction that these ports should be dealt with as recreational and fishing ports and not as major commercial enterprises.
If Bill C-6 had passed before Bill C-2, we would have arranged for a transfer of the responsibility of these two ports from the Minister of Transport to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. This bill therefore does it all in one through this amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, has there been consultation with the city councils of Belleville and Winnipeg? If so, what is the word from those bodies?


Otto Emil Lang: I referred to general satisfaction. There have been discussions and consultations particularly between the people developing the ports legislation, the task force and other officials, and my understanding is there is general satisfaction with this change.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Anderson) agreed to.


Roméo LeBlanc: that Bill C-2, an Act respecting the administration and development of certain fishing and recreational harbours in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Roméo LeBlanc: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce for third reading Bill C-2, the fishing and recreational harbours
Fishing and Recreational Harbours act. This act will provide the necessary legislative authority to develop and administer commercial fishing and recreational harbours in Canada in order to meet the changing requirements of the fisheries and the growing needs of sports fishing and recreational boating. We have about 2,300 of these small harbours located across the country, with some comprising several wharves, breakwaters, and other structures, totalling some 4,000 facilities.
[ Translation]
We often forget that one of the essential factors of successful fisheries is precisely the development of harbour, and harbour facilities well situated in relation to fishing areas and providing standards required by fishermen as far as facilities and services are concerned. The provisions of Bill C-2 on development provide various measures which will meet those requirements as far as possible. The government will thus be in a position to continue to build, maintain and operate fishing harbours giving priority to such activities in the allotment of budget funds.

During debate on second reading of the bill some members were critical of the amount of money being spent on the development and maintenance of our small craft harbours. I should like to put on the record a few facts and figures which I believe speak for themselves.
In the six years prior to the transfer of responsibility for this program to the Department of Fisheries, expenditures on fishing and recreational harbours varied from a low of about $8 million a year to a little over $13 million. This is in sharp contrast to expenditure levels in recent years. They have more than quadrupled in some years; for example, in 1973-74 expenditures amounted to about $22.3 million; in 1974-75 to about $30.6 million; in 1975-76 to about $28.8 million; in 1976-77 to about $42.7 million; and in 1977-78 we expect the amount to reach some $47 million.
In 1976-77, and again this year, we have made extensive use of funds provided by the federal labour-intensive program and the Canada Works program to undertake improvements and repairs to our fishing harbours. Our small craft harbours administration has provided on-site assistance and materials required by communities, whilst utilizing local labour. This melding of small craft harbour resources with the federal labour-intensive and Canada manpower programs has resulted in the provision of additional funds for harbour development in the amount of nearly $32 million over the two years which would not have been otherwise available.
In terms of job creation, these special programs have meant some 7,500 more man-months in 1976-77, and we anticipate about 15,000 more man-months this year. The economic and social impact of these programs is very considerable as they are undertaken in communities with a high level of unemployment and have a multiplier effect in stimulating economic activity at the local level.
I have mentioned the substantial increase in levels of program expenditures in recent years, and I would now like to
2414

January 31, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours highlight a few of the more important considerations concerning the distribution of these funds.
It must be remembered that in 1973 the department inherited over 2,000 harbours and wharves, very large numbers of which were in dire need of repairs as a result of neglect in the past. Because of this, our programs have focused on making good this backlog of repairs and providing for only the most urgent of harbour expansions. It is only now that we are in a position to change the main thrust of our programs from repairs to that of improving, expanding and up-dating our harbours, and providing the better services needed by fishermen such as lighting, haulouts and proper work areas.
In 1973 we initiated a series of major studies to evaluate the existing fishing and recreational harbours owned by the federal government and to suggest a rationale for their development in the future. These studies were completed in 1975 and provide the basis for our ongoing plans, ensuring a planned and orderly undertaking of harbour improvements which are in step with the needs of the fishery across the country. The programming of projects each year takes into account not only the local needs of the fishermen but also the broader requirements and priorities of the commercial fishery throughout a region.
Our projects, whilst based on the needs of a community, are integrated within a national program in which major projects are usually phased over two or more years. This causes peaks in some regional allotments for the years covering major construction as they shift from region to region. For example, expenditures in Quebec peaked during 1975-76 and 1976-77 due to the special St. Lawrence fishing harbour development program, and have now been reduced to more modest levels. Meanwhile, expenditures in British Columbia will be increased this year and in the next few years as a result of construction of the new fishing harbour at Steveston, which is a very major undertaking. And so it goes in other regions.
Members of the House who have been following Bill C-2 through committee are aware of the misunderstandings that have arisen over provisions in the legislation which would allow introduction of a system of annual charges to commercial fishermen. This, naturally, has caused concern on the part of members on both sides of the House as to possible additional burdens being imposed on already hard-pressed fishermen.
This misconception, of course, is that the existing system is not imposing hardship. It is, because fishermen are not being treated equally at our harbours; at one they are required to pay a fee, and at others they are not. Inadequate administration and management of our harbours has resulted in that inequity, and others, that must be resolved.
However, let me assure the House that no decision has been made in respect of the details of a new fee structure. Fishermen are not going to wake up with the passage of this legislation to find they have to pay the federal government "X" number of dollars.
I believe we should continue with our present system, with all its shortcomings, for the present, without making any

changes until the health of the fishery improves and subsidies in that area are reduced. What we intend to do now is discuss with fishermen and their organizations how we can achieve a modest and equitable fee structure that would allow both better management of facilities and better on-site services for Canada's commercial fishermen. Certainly I cannot emphasize this enough. Any fee structure arrived at through that consultative process will be of a modest nature and will be phased in gradually in relation to the recovery of the stocks and the over-all health of the fishery.
The nucleus of the proposal we will bring to the fishermen is how we can best devise a fee system which will not only recognize market demand and relate to the level and quality of services provided, but will recognize regional differences. Obviously that means we are not going to be illogical enough, particularly in the case of east coast fishermen, to subsidize on the one hand and take it back through an unreasonable fee structure on the other.
I am confident that through discussion and consultation, and by approaching the issue with the best interests of the fishermen in mind, a system can be devised which will make history of existing inequities and provide only benefits to the fishermen in the future.
I want to say very simply that the purpose of this act is not to increase general revenues of the Receiver General of Canada, but rather is an attempt to put in place an administrative framework which in fact services the fishermen. The fishing and recreational harbours act will provide the legislative authority to undertake this type of work, and will also place emphasis on joint planning and co-operation with the provinces. I will, therefore, be introducing some new programs which will be responsive to provincial and municipal governments for the joint development of launching ramps and marinas where they are required to meet the needs of communities.
The bulk of pleasure boating activity is concentrated in Ontario and British Columbia and it has caused acute congestion within the harbours in these regions. I would, therefore, expect to see our expenditures continue to be directed primarily, but by no means entirely, to these areas of the country.
I should like to say in conclusion that this bill, the fishing and recreational harbours act, is important to ensure the proper continuing development of fishing and recreational harbours in the country. It will allow the minister to introduce new programs and administrative arrangements which are responsive to the changing needs of our commercial fishermen and recreational boaters. I thank hon. members on both sides of the House for their co-operation, as well as their valuable comments and suggestions made during the review of this bill.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-2, an act respecting the administration and development of certain fishing and recreational harbours in Canada. This bill was introduced first in the last session. At that time it was known as Bill C-7.
January 31, 1978

Unfortunately the Liberal government chose to treat this as an unimportant piece of legislation, so unimportant in fact that it chose to let it die on the order paper. Yet during that period of time the government passed legislation relating to the Canada Lands Surveys Act, diplomatic and consular privileges, an income tax agreement with Germany and some 12 name changes to constituencies.
I am not saying these pieces of legislation were not important, but I am questioning their relative importance vis-a-vis fisheries. Surely the government's handling of Bill C-7 demonstrates its lack of concern for the Canadian fishing industry, an industry where the gross annual cash receipts to our primary producers now total approximately $400 million, with an annual market value of approximately $1 billion. Our annual commercial fish landings of close to one million tons are approximately one-tenth of those of the leading producer of food from water, namely, Japan. It is between 1 per cent and 2 per cent of the world's production. Obviously Canada has a long way to go. There is a lot of opportunity if we get out the nets and get to work.
Because of the fate of Bill C-7, my colleagues and I, in a spirit of co-operation, allowed the government to send Bill C-2 directly to committee at the beginning of this session. Unfortunately this spirit of co-operation at the beginning of the new session ended in committee where the Liberal majority refused to accept sound amendments aimed at improving this bill. In particular, the Liberal majority supported those sections of the bill which will increase licence fees, which will not ensure consultation with interested parties, and which will give the minister the right arbitrarily to lease harbours to any one person. Bill C-2 updates past legislation and regulations pertaining to small craft harbours.
Legislative authority for the administration of these harbours has been provided by the government's Harbours and Piers Act, its accompanying government wharves regulations and various orders in council. The Harbours and Piers Act was originally drafted in 1895 and revised in 1937. Obviously years ago fisheries were not considered that important, because when we look at 1895 and 1937, we find a lot of bridge has gone over the water in Halifax, for example in the time elapsed. As a result, it has not focused on the present day administration needs of the fishermen and recreational boaters. As well, it does not include provisions for the development of these harbours. New legislation has been needed for some time. At last we have Bill C-2 which will gather, consolidate, and update the scattered elements under one new act.
In addition, when the program and administrative responsibilities for the small craft harbours were transferred to the Department of Fisheries and the Environment in June 1973 from the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport, it was done so by an order in council. This method of transfer has not been as effective for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) as legislative enactment. For example, one Department of Transport official on the west coast refused to acknowledge the transfer and he did not send his files to the Department of Fisheries and the
Fishing and Recreational Harbours Environment until late last year, some three years after the time of transfer. Perhaps the minister takes exception to that, but that is my information.
Nevertheless, in spite of these good intentions, Bill C-2 raises some questions and problems. The budget of the small craft harbours branch, which will administer Bill C-2, was only $35 million in fiscal year 1976-77. Most of that money was used for the repair and modernization of the federal government's fishing and recreational harbours and wharves on the east and west coasts. This is a pitifully small amount of money when one considers that the small craft harbours branch has responsibility over some 2,300 facilities.
I have been informed that the government would like to abandon or destroy about half of these facilities. Consequently, it would appear that the Liberal government's master plan is not to increase expenditures to meet the number of facilities, but to decrease the number of facilities to meet the expenditures, regardless of whether they are serving the needs of communities. I made this point last December and indicated that, if my analysis was incorrect, then the minister should table the future plans of the small craft harbours branch so that they could be discussed in committee. I am still waiting. The longer I wait, the more credible is my original analysis.
At the same time, the number of fishery wharves has been decreasing. These wharves are essential to the very livelihood of many maritime Canadians. This government has become more involved in the financing and construction of recreational harbours. This drift toward recreation at the expense of Fishing raises a valid question as to whether the Department of Fisheries and the Environment is fulfilling its mandate. Its mandate is to promote and undertake programs designed to improve the management and sustained economic utilization of the marine and aquatic renewable resources of the nation, compatible with a concern for the quality of the environment. I hope the minister will reconsider his priorities, because after all there is a Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo), a minister who could be made responsible for the development of recreational facilities.
Nonetheless, since Bill C-2 is partly concerned with financing recreational harbours, one still might question one aspect of the government's marina assistance program which was established to encourage the construction of new marinas by local municipalities and by private developers. The federal government pays for the construction of the breakwater and for dredging, while the municipality and/or developer pays the other costs plus upkeep. Federal government participation is limited to 50 per cent of the total cost of the marina. However, despite paying up to 50 per cent of the cost, it receives no future compensation for its contribution. Why should private developers line their pockets with taxpayers' money? I hope the government ensures that the marina is opened and available to all boaters at reasonable cost.
Unfortunately the figures referred to by the minister this evening are not the same as those contained in his news release of December 15, 1977, which announced spending under FLIP. I am sure my constituents wonder what is going on when they
80031 -1 2V2

January 31, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
hear the many different alphabetical acronyms which are being used, such as FLIP, LIP and zippety-do-dahs. On December 15 the minister announced that $18,386,000 would be spent over the next nine months for fisheries management and small craft harbours projects. Frankly, this is something we have been advocating for considerable time. We have been saying it is not necessary to spend millions of dollars to find out what is needed in Atlantic Canada because we have many wharves, skidways and harbour facilities that require improvement. We welcome additional money. But I say to the minister that it still only brings the total for harbours in Canada to date to something a little more than $50 million-$35 million in the estimates and the $18 million.
When I look at the money spent on Mirabel, something in the nature of $600 million to $800 million, the total amount spent on harbours would cover perhaps a couple of runways. It still falls far short of the amount we hand out to run the Post Office, the deficit of which this year will be something like $475 million. We seem to think nothing of funding the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the tune of something like $468 million this year, or over $9 million a week. When we look, as I said a moment ago, at an industry that is worth $400 million to Canadians, to the primary sector alone, and $1 billion in total, I submit it is time that the industry received greater consideration from this government. Since the number of fisheries wharves has also been decreasing, we would like to see a little more action, especially in some parts of Nova Scotia.
So much for the good news. The major faults of this bill so far as I can determine-and we gave the bill very careful study in committee-lie in the areas of leasing, consultation and licence fees. Clauses 5 and 8 of the bill read as follows:
5. (1) The minister may undertake projects for the acquisition, development, construction, improvement or repair of any scheduled harbour or any fishing or recreational harbour to which this act applies.
8. The minister may, subject to the regulations,
(a)	lease any scheduled harbour or any part thereof to any person;
(b)	grant a licence to any person for the use of any scheduled harbour or any
part thereof; and
(c)	enter into an agreement with the government of any province or agency
thereof for the occupancy and use of any scheduled harbour or any part
thereof.
I said in committee that these powers are too wide for the minister. They are too wide for any minister. We cannot understand how any minister can believe that he has the right to lease a harbour to any one person. We do not believe that fishermen should needlessly be subjected to the whims of a private individual or corporation who may wish to lease the harbour. In committee we introduced an amendment which would have required that any leasing be done to provincial or municipal government. However, the Liberal majority voted this down.
We also fear that the bill does not provide for sufficient consultation between the minister and the affected parties. According to the small craft harbours branch, Bill C-2 is wide

enough to sail the Queen Mary through. It is wide enough for the minister to go it alone where he can work, if he so wishes, in concert with the provinces and municipalities. The trouble with this minister is that he does not often choose to work with the provinces.
I can see problems with clause 5 of this bill which allows the minister to build recreational harbours wherever he chooses without regard for provincial or municipal desires. I should like to ask the minister what has happened to the view that the provinces should be consulted on matters affecting their interests. I say to the minister most sincerely that his lack of consultation with the provincial ministers over fisheries matters has been a major criticism of him. The Halifax Chronicle Herald has contained nothing but criticism of him for months, as expressed by the provincial minister of Newfoundland and by the supporter of his own party in the province of Nova Scotia, the provincial minister of fisheries in our province.
This lack of consultation was especially evident last session at committee hearings on Bill C-38, to amend the Fisheries Act. Province after province came forward from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Nova Scotia to British Columbia, and each and every brief presented before that committee contained a condemnation of this minister for lack of consultation with them on the bill's provision for fighting pollution. Stonewalling tactics do not work. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that confrontation will never replace consultation, and that we do not need to wonder why there is dissatisfaction and discontent at present throughout the land.
Unfortunately it would appear that the minister has learned very little from his experience with Bill C-38, because in committee his colleagues refused to support our amendment which would have required him at least to consult with the affected provinces and municipalities before constructing a small craft harbour. I had hoped the minister would have learned from the past that he can no longer treat the provinces and municipalities as mere pawns which exist to obey and carry out the programs and policies of this minister and his staff; but it would seem from the Liberal attitude which was displayed in the committee that this government will try to continue to ride roughshod over the provinces' and municipalities' rights and desires.
Our major disappointment at the committee hearings centred around the minister's attitude toward licence fees for the use of small craft harbour facilities. The bill allows the minister to set whatever fee he wants without having to go to parliament for approval. The minister admitted that a licence fee would be imposed for the use of government small craft harbour facilities, but he was unwilling to tell us what that fee would be. Rather than that, he stated, we should pass the bill immediately so that he could set up a fee structure.
This is like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. If we were to pass this bill unaltered, I submit we would be derelict in our duties because the minister could then establish a fee structure and remain unresponsive to any criticisms or suggestions for its improvement. I have learned that a plan is now being discussed which would require a
January 31, 1978

fisherman to purchase a licence based upon the length of his vessel, possibly $1 per foot, although this was not clarified this evening by the minister in his remarks. He simply stated that fishermen should not worry that they would wake up and find they would have to pay X number of dollars after we pass this bill.
I say to the minister that fishermen wake up many nights wondering in some cases where their next dollar is coming from, whether the weather will be fine the next day, whether they can go to sea, whether there will be any lobsters there for them to catch. Now he has given them another worry: will it be $1 or $2? How many dollars per foot will he charge them? Will the minister deign to tell them this evening? He says that this fee will only cover the use of the government's small craft harbour facilities. There will still be other fees to pay, such as a licence fee for lobster fishermen or for ground fishermen, or a licence fee for tying up the boat. The fishermen with whom I have spoken recently say: "We are getting to be like the office of Sun Life, filled with all kinds of papers delivered to us from bureaucratic Ottawa. We will soon have to get an accountant just to keep track of our licences".
What I said last December still holds true. In my view this proposal for a licence fee is simply another unfair tax on Canadians using public facilities in Atlantic Canada, while people in more prosperous parts of this nation are provided more public facilities free of charge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: Ask your colleagues from western Canada.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: My colleagues from western Canada are quite capable of speaking for themselves. I am speaking for the fishermen in Atlantic Canada, and primarily for people in my province of Nova Scotia. I would like to think that after 21 years here in June I have a fairly good idea of what they like and dislike about some of these fisheries policies.
I contend that what is being proposed in this legislation- and I regret that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is not here because I do not like to speak about ministers in their absence-is nothing more than the concept put forward by the Minister of Transport, the user-pay concept, and I submit that it is not acceptable in Atlantic Canada. A $50 fee for a 50-foot boat may not sound like much to the minister or to an Ottawa bureaucrat, but to an Atlantic fisherman $50 can sometimes be a very princely sum not too easily come by, especially in these times of high unemployment.
In my view it is senseless for the government to talk about added licence fees and added financial burdens during these times of high unemployment. On a national basis in December unemployment was running at 8.5 per cent, up from 7.5 per cent the year before. The figures were even worse in Atlantic Canada. There the average stood at 13.3 per cent or 107,000 unemployed persons, up from 10.8 per cent or 90,000 the year
Fishing and Recreational Harbours before. In effect, one worker in eight is without employment in Atlantic Canada.
On a provincial basis unemployment in December stood at 17.5 per cent, or 31,000 people, in Newfoundland; in Prince Edward Island it stood at 11.4 per cent, or 5,000 people; in Nova Scotia it stood at 10.2 per cent, or 33,000 people; and in New Brunswick it stood at 14.3 per cent, or 38,000 people. Worse still, these figures are expected to increase. By 1979 another 12,000 people are projected to be unemployed in Atlantic Canada, and most of them will be residents of Newfoundland where unemployment is projected to increase by a full 3 per cent over the next two years. These are only bare statistics. In terms of human sorrow and mental anguish the story is much worse. Yet this government insists upon licence fees, causing the people of Atlantic Canada who can least afford it to bear an even heavier share of the burden of the mismanagement of the economy of Canada by this Liberal government. That is most unfair.


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Mr. Goodale:: You are laughing over there.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: An hon. member opposite says we are laughing. Well, he can sit over there and laugh at the fishermen of Atlantic Canada. He can laugh at the hardships they face and the work they have to do to make a living in a very harsh environment. He can laugh if he wishes. But it is no laughing matter in Atlantic Canada, and if the hon. member wants to see how funny it is, he can come down to Atlantic Canada some time.
The minister has argued that fishermen already face licence fees because there are already wharfage charges on the books. However, as there are only approximately 200 wharfingers throughout Canada to collect those charges, most fishermen have grown accustomed to using government wharves and small craft harbour facilities free of charge. The minister plans to revamp the wharfinger system so that all major small craft harbours will be under the administration of wharfingers. As I understand it, some 1,466 facilities have no wharfingers, and the number hired has no relation to the number of small craft harbours in a province. Newfoundland, for example, has only eight. In Nova Scotia I understand that there are about 40, while Quebec has only five.
In committee my colleagues and I simply requested the minister, bearing in mind the high unemployment levels and the low income levels of Atlantic Canada, to defer any introduction of a licence fee for at least five years. After five years, in our opinion the Atlantic fishery should hopefully be on its way to recovery. It should be on its way to recovery because of the phase-out of foreign fishing within the 200-mile economic zone. In this phase-out decreased fishing should enable fish stocks to rebuild automatically. As Progressive Conservatives this seemed to us to be a reasonable compromise. However, the minister and all the Liberal members on that committee voted down that compromise. They will have to answer to the people

January 31, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
of Atlantic Canada for so doing. They refused that reasonable request.
As a result of the minister's refusal to take a compromising position over licence fees, we on this side are forced to vote against this bill. We are very much aware of the economic suffering which many of our fishermen have been going through. For example, five years ago approximately 7 per cent of Canada's commercial fishermen earned less than $7,500, which is the generally accepted poverty line figure. I do not believe that this figure has changed drastically, especially with reduced catch quotas. Therefore, I feel that Canadian fishermen should not be subjected at this time to additional erosions of their already small incomes.
Speaking as one who has lived a lifetime on the ocean, I am well aware that a watertight, seaworthy ship can travel over thousands of miles of ocean without facing any serious difficulty. However, when a little water enters the ship the crew is in difficulty, and when a lot of water enters the ship the crew is in danger of foundering and sinking with that ship. The present Liberal government can be compared somewhat to a ship in the ocean. As long as it made laws for Canadians which could serve as a guide for their day-to-day social, cultural and business activities, the ship of state could safely sail over the economic ocean of Canada. However, this government, unfortunately, has not been satisfied at all with doing the job it was elected to do. It not only wanted to sail over Canada's economic ocean; it started leaking economic water into the Canadian ship of state. Just as a ship sinks when it takes in too much of the element over which it is sailing, so too is the Canadian ship of state sinking, because this government today is taking in too much of the economic ocean of Canada.
For safety's sake, the water of the ocean must be kept out of a ship; and for the safe and sound development of the Canadian economy this government must stick to the job of manning the ship of state while allowing the economic oceans of Canada to rise, fall and move as the currents of individual ambition and initiative strive to develop and improve conditions individually and collectively. We on this side do not want to see Canada's ship of state founder and sink, but this is what is happening as this government seeks to make laws and to set up too strong a control over the economy through the setting up of government controlled companies which ultimately destroy the freedoms of individual Canadians and limits their right to make meaningful decisions.
This is what we see happening today with this bill. This bill seeks to tax Canadian fishermen further. It seeks to limit their freedom of choice as it applies to docking their ships, and it ultimately will give more political power over the lives of individual Canadians to the government. The appointment of some 1,400 wharfingers alone would be pork barrelling of the worst kind. It would give power to the minister unlike anything we have seen. This is not restraint. This is not restriction of bureaucracy. This is an expansion of it.
In conclusion, if we are to break out from under the present heavy burden of excessive taxation, mounting inflation and rising unemployment, we can do so only by giving free rein to

individual ambition and initiative. We must encourage the individual Canadian to do better, and this cannot be accomplished by further restricting his individual freedoms and increasing his tax burdens.
In the recent joint provincial fisheries development proposal there was no reference whatsoever to Bill C-2. The proposal did, however, deal with the resource fleet development, markets and foreign arrangements, something which the minister has chosen, in discussing this bill, to ignore completely. As a result of the minister's attitude an entire generation of young Canadian fishermen may well be lost unless licenses and boats are made available. In parts of Atlantic Canada many young people who want to go fishing are forced to turn elsewhere for employment. Many have skipper's licenses but no boats, and fishermen can no longer afford to build boats on their own. Because it is imperative that we build up the inshore fleet, the federal government should make funds available for fishermen who wish to borrow.
Canadian shipyard costs are much higher than in Europe. The fishermen have to sell their catches in European as well as American markets on a competitive basis. It is up to this government to arrange the equalizer between our own costs and European costs so that our fleet can be built up for the benefit of Canadian shipyards and the industry.
The most recent statement the minister made to me did nothing to indicate that some of the problems to which I refer will be resolved or even studied, so at this time we therefore feel it necessary to vote against this bill on third reading.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is not long since this bill was first before us that it is not surprising there was some uncertainty this evening about whether we would be debating it or Bill C-17. Until the last minute it was not clear whether we would be going ahead with Bill C-3, Bill C-2 or Bill C-17. This is a further example of the disorder in which this government finds itself. It was only at the last minute they decided to move Bill C-2.
Bill C-2 was originally presented as Bill C-7, but that was long ago. It was thoroughly examined in committee both as Bill C-7 and as Bill C-2 and the government eventually responded to recommendations from this side to modify some of the plans laid out in the bill. Nonetheless, the terms were left in the bill to enable the government to go back and do something they said they were going to withdraw for the time being. I refer, of course, to the levying of fees for the use of the facilities.
Fishing on the west coast is in complete disarray at the moment, despite the fact that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Fishermen are in revolt against the regulations that have been brought forward, against the uncertainty of plans for licensing, against the thought that they will be charged the financial schedule that was being proposed. Although we heard during the committee
January 31, 1978

proceedings that they had been consulted before the fee schedule was brought forward, this has since turned out to be misleading. There was no consultation until these regulations were brought down in committee. Then we found a series of regulations drawn up without regard to the fact that fees for licensing on the west coast ranged up to about $2,000 and fees for the use of harbours on the west coast were to be double the fees on the east coast.
This is unacceptable in a country where equalization is supposed to be one of the features of our society. There ought to be some means of maintaining unity in this country. Why exacerbate matters by surcharging the west coast on fees, thereby aggravating the disunifying factors that are already there. These are some of the reasons why I must vote against the bill.
Clause 9(f) of the bill reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may make regulations ...
(0 prescribing charges for the use of any scheduled harbour;
An earlier clause designates scheduled harbours. When the bill is passed the minister will have power to prescribe the fees. We have the word of the minister in committee. I take his word as he is an honourable man, but supposing he should not be the minister one day. We hear there are other more exalted roles for him to play.


Roméo LeBlanc: I am going to B.C.!


Donald W. Munro: The minister expresses an interest in going to B.C. I think he would have trouble there. With the suggestions he has made about overcharging the fishermen in B.C. I do not think they would accept him too readily.
We have an undertaking by a minister in committee, however, that he will not for the moment prescribe charges for the use of any scheduled harbour. Under the provisions of clause 9 the minister may do certain things through the governor in council. About fifteen different things will be proposed by his officials, be approved by the minister and then go to the governor in council. If another minister takes over he may, of course, scrap the undertaking given by this minister and introduce the fees that were withdrawn.
I was absolutely staggered by the schedule of fees presented to us in committee by officials of the department. I think it was that as much as anything that caused me to have serious doubts about the bill and which brought me to the conclusion that I shall have to vote against it.
I mentioned the disarray of the fishing industry on the west coast. A former minister of the environment in this government devised a scheme of restricting licenses, presumably with a view to the management of the stock of the fisheries. He introduced two different kinds of fishing licenses and this scheme has continued. For reasons best known to the fishermen and the minister, this system just has not worked. Today, in an open meeting, I asked whether the Davis plan for managing the catch had resulted in increased stock on the west coast. The answer from knowledgeable scientific people was
Fishing and Recreational Harbours that it had not. Now I understand that the minister had decided the plan will not work and has appointed a Mr. Sol Sinclair to investigate the AB licensing system to determine whether it should be modified in order to produce an increase in stock or whether some other system would be preferable. Meanwhile, the fishermen do not know where the licensing system is going to lead. As I say, they are in disarray.
Another aspect of this bill has me worried. In clauses 10, 8 and 5, there are possibilities for patronage. In fact, possibilities for patronage abound in this bill. Clause 10 states:
-the Minister may designate as an enforcement officer any person who is, in the opinion of the Minister, qualified to be so designated-
There is no indication of what the qualifications ought to be. If the minister intended that a fisheries officer, RCMP officer or coast guard officer should be designated as an enforcement officer under the meaning of this act, why did he not clearly state that? The qualifications of an enforcement officer ought to be somewhere. There is a definition, but no qualification. This is very dangerous.
After the next election, there will be a lot of defeated candidates. Some of them will be designated if this minister is still the minister, which I doubt.


Roméo LeBlanc: He will be.


Donald W. Munro: If he is here, he will have to change sides. He will no longer be fisheries minister. Some of these people opposite might have it in mind to designate defeated candidate enforcement officers. That option, of course, will be foreclosed with the next election. There is no doubt in my mind about that. The same option is open to the minister under clause 8, which states:
The minister may-
(a) lease any scheduled harbour ... to any person;
A scheduled harbour may have a great commercial potential. The danger here is that a long lease may be signed before the next election. The minister may feel that it is about time someone was looked after, and in order to ensure his vote at the next election he will lease one of the harbours that he has scheduled to that individual. That is another opportunity for patronage. Bill C-2 ought to be called the patronage bill.
Clause 5(1)-and this, Mr. Speaker, you will find hard to believe-states:
The Minister may undertake projects for the acquisition, development, construction, improvement or repair of any scheduled harbour or any fishing or recreational harbour to which this Act applies.
The minister better make use of that before the election if he intends to compensate those who have given good service to the party. Clause 5(3) provides a beautiful opportunity. You would not believe this one. I quote:
The Minister may ... enter into an agreement with any person to provide for
(a) the undertaking jointly with the person of any project that the Minister is
authorized to undertake under subsection (1);

January 31, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
Would you believe that? It is open to pork barrelling of the worst possible kind. We are being asked to approve the possibility of government, whichever government, authorizing pork barrelling. That is something that is normally done under the counter without legislative backup, but here we are being asked to make it legal. This 1 will not do.
In his introduction the minister talked about fees. I have already mentioned them in my few remarks. He stated that for the time being there are not going to be any fees. He said they are going to study the question again. I do not have the text of the minister's comments in front of me, but he left the impression that this is all being done out of his good nature. Someone happened to mention to him that there was some inconsistency in the fees being proposed. Out of his good nature, and he is a good natured guy, he said he would withdraw the fee schedule.
It was not withdrawn because of his consultations with the fishermen. It was because of all the harping we did in committee. We stated that they were impossible fee schedules and we were not going to have them. Thereupon they were withdrawn for the time being. However, as I already stated, the provision is still in the bill for him to impose that fee schedule whenever he wishes.
The other problem on the west coast is the enhancement program. It is such a complicated matter that I am not sure I will be able to deal with it in all aspects. It has gone a little foul in two regards. One suggestion is that the enhancement program is going to be contracted out. I have heard, and this distresses me, that some fisheries officials have decided there is more to be gained outside the public service by taking a contract to do the enhancement program than there is inside using fisheries officers. I do not like that suggestion.
The enhancement program requires the most careful, scientific care of trained people. The minister would not contract out to me, even if I were on his side of the House, because I am not scientifically trained.


Roméo LeBlanc: Oh yes, I would.


Donald W. Munro: Although we are good friends, I do not think he would go quite that far. I know I am not trained to carry out the program. If it goes to contracting out, how is the minister to determine whether those he contracts to carry out the program are qualified to do so? This provision is very dangerous. The minister is about to say he would only hire those already in his service who decide to retire. That is a very bad principle. It is one of the aspects that is causing a great deal of concern on the west coast.
The other matter of concern is the cost of the enhancement program. It was to be included in the fees. If this minister has anything to do with it-and he will not be the minister for all time-it will be included in the fees when that schedule comes forward. That is how the salmon enhancement program should work. Instead of user-pay, or "user-pray," I think that "prey on the user" is the correct way of defining the program. The western fishermen will have none of that.

I have gone into some of the regulations. Under this bill there are two sets of regulations. We have reached a point in this parliament at which we are considering bills whose purpose is to provide a framework within which regulations may be set. That is the way the government operates. They will not come clean and say what regulations they intend to establish. Clause 9 and clause 25 each implies different sets of regulations. Clause 9 gives the governor in council authority to make regulations governing 15 different matters, including fees, schedules, safety and so on. Fair enough. But the officials surely know what ought to be contained in these regulations. Why not append them to the bill? We criticized the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) when we were dealing with another bill and eventually we got the regulations appended to the measure. That is the way it should work.
There is no question that regulations are required and that they cannot all be written into an act. But they could be attached as a schedule. The schedule could be brought forward for consideration during the life of an act and altered at that time. Blanket authority should not be given to officials to draw up regulations which are not known to the House in advance.
Clause 25 contemplates that the governor-in-council may by regulation designate any offence under the act. Here we are dealing with the fixing of fines by another set of regulations. Surely it should be possible to append the regulations to a bill so that we and the fishermen directly concerned may know exactly where we stand. The matter is even more important to the fishermen than it is to us; we are trying to defend their interests in our comments tonight.
My hon. friend from South Shore (Mr. Crouse) mentioned the wharfingers and the possibility of patronage. I shall not develop that aspect, but is the minister planning to designate some of the wharfingers as enforcement officers? Maybe. Maybe not. I am sorry there is no clearer definition of what is meant by "enforcement officer". The term could apply to wharfingers; they have certain powers under the act which are stronger than one might be prepared to accept at first glance.
My final comments relate to the 200-mile limit which is another source of great confusion on both coasts because of the uncertainty and the secrecy surrounding the negotiations between ourselves and the United States with regard to the definition of our boundaries at the four places where our two zones meet. There has been no report on these negotiations. We know that a competent diplomat has been assigned to the task backed by a good staff, but we are expected to take so much on trust when the government has given us no reason for extending that trust. It worries me that we should be expected to extend trust to a government which has shown itself incapable of governing this country. On the contrary, it is seemingly determined to break the country up. Still, we are asked to trust the government to conclude satisfactory agreements with our neighbour to the south on the boundary between the two zones. We do not even know what possibilities are being explored by the negotiators.
January 31, 1978

In this connection, I note that my former colleague, Marcel Cadieux, is the principal negotiator. I have great trust in the man. But why should he not have behind him the authority of parliament to get what is required by Canada in these negotiations? Why has there not been a briefing, even a confidential briefing, given to selected members of parliament? They would not go blabbing. Members of the Press Gallery would try to get information. Bless them, let them try. But in matters of this importance there could not be any possibility of leakage.
A further cause of uncertainty is that no provision whatever has been made for the surface patrol of a tremendously large area which was taken under our umbrella on January 1, 1977. I do not know whether the minister, when he was out in Victoria, saw those ships, boats, or whatever they are, which are intended to be our patrol vessels. For their size and number they do a fair job but they cannot be expected to carry Canadian jurisdiction to the extent of 200 miles or even, on the west coast, to the 50-mile margin which is the end of the fishing limit out there to all intents and purposes. This still leaves a lot of sea to be covered.
The three vessels out there, the Runner, the Racer and the Rider, are just not capable of the task assigned to them, and there is still nothing in the works, as far as I can make out, unless something is being negotiated with Denmark on a charter basis. And that would be a great shame when we have within this country the competence, the technology, to produce our own fisheries patrol vessels. They ought to be on the stocks. Is any thought at all being given to that? I see the minister nods but I have not seen any tenders for design being let, or anything like that. I believe he is keeping that in his head because he does not want me to know that vessels intended for us on the west coast are not being built on the west coast. Vessels which are for use on the Pacific coast should be designed and built on the Pacific coast whether they are for naval or for fisheries use.


An hon. Member:: And at Saint John for the east coast.


Donald W. Munro: And at Saint John for the east coast; we shall split it for the Arctic.
It is on these grounds-the uncertainty due to what the regulations will contain, the uncertainty as to what the level of the fees will be, the uncertainty into which the west coast fishermen have been locked because of the licensing system and the patronage potential contained in the bill-that we find it impossible to support this bill.
In addition there is the salmonoid program, which had been the enhancement program to which I subscribed. I do not like the way it is going. Last but not least, there is the failure of this bill to define exactly what is intended by an enforcement officer. For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, 1 do feel that it will be impossible for my colleagues and I to support this bill.


Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on
Fishing and Recreational Harbours this bill, particularly after listening to my colleague from the west coast. I had heard the party opposite described as the party of gloom and doom, but nowhere is that more evident than in debate of this bill tonight. It seems to me that this is one area, not the only area in the country, where there is room for hope, yet all we have heard are the negative aspects of this particular industry.
My colleague from the west coast has told me that the west coast fisheries are in disarray. There is disillusionment, discouragement and despair in that region. I do not know what the mood is there because I cannot speak for the west coast, but I can tell you that in my part of the east coast, in the Atlantic area, there is optimism, there is buoyancy and there is a spirit among the fishermen which has never been experienced before. All of this is due to the policies of the government and this minister. That is a fact. If you would like to go and talk to the fishermen, Mr. Speaker, they will tell you the same things I am telling you now. I have heard the comment that all of this is as a result of the policies of this minister. This minister is known not necessarily as the minister of fisheries but as the minister of fishermen. There is a great difference, and there is adequate evidence why that should be so.
I heard arguments earlier this evening concerning the amount of money put in to small craft harbours compared with what was spent on Mirabel airport, what was spent on the CBC and whatever. Some years ago when the Koreans hit the U.S. market with cheap hake, something like $140 million was gained by this minister from the government of Canada to support a failing Atlantic fishery, which was failing through no fault of its own but through the fault of the state of the marketplace at that time. So when hon. members fault the minister for obtaining insufficient money for the fishery, there is evidence there to contradict that. When they fault him for not bringing in policies that are in the interests of the fishermen, here is a minister who put money into the fishermen's pocket. The subsidies up to two years ago went to the companies. Now two and a half cents a pound on top quality groundfish is going into the pockets of the fishermen for the first time. This is the minister not of fisheries but of fishermen.
I want to make some comments concerning this bill. I think they have to be put in the context of the 200-mile limit. I was mystified because I heard that the 200-mile limit was not necessarily going over as a good thing. In my area it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The 200-mile limit is a fantastic thing for this country. It is the greatest reason for hope that we have, and that is certainly true in my province. As a result of the 200-mile limit, quotas over-all have been decreased so that we are now rebuilding stocks, but Canadian quotas have increased. What is more important is the fact that the quota to inshore fishermen has increased, which comes off the top of the over-all quota before it is divided up. This is the point I want to zero in on. This bill is going to be good for the inshore fishery, which in my area is still the backbone of the fishery.

January 31, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
I want to refer to a statement made by the minister of external affairs, I believe last week. I would like to quote parts of it in a press release that accompanied his statement.
The guiding principle for future development of Newfoundland's fisheries should be that the inshore fishery comes first.
I cannot read all of what he said, but here are some other statements:
It is not a matter of having one or the other ... It is ... very much a question of balance, and in considering what that balance should be, there is now, near unanimous agreement on a fundamental first principle for fisheries development: the inshore fishery comes first.
First of all, if the inshore fishery is to be the backbone of the Newfoundland fishery-I do agree with that statement, and I believe it to be true certainly along the northeast coast-then we have a need for good shore facilities. This bill gives the minister management over those shore facilities and a structure for seeing those shore facilities are developed. In the long run that will benefit the fishermen. He makes provision, contrary to what we have heard, for consultation, for community involvement in the planning facilities. I do not know about other areas, but we have not had that in my area before. The opening is there for putting further staff in place. I can only speak again for the area I represent. It is a good thing as long as it does not become a rigid tier of bureaucracy. This is something we have to guard against.
If the minister is going to put in place this management regime and if he is going to recruit additional staff, I would urge the minister to have advisory groups set up among the fishermen in the same way that he does in setting his licensing policies. I believe that consultation has to be there. He has shown in the past that he is prepared to do it and I urge him to do it in the future.
As for the matter of charges to be levied, the minister has dealt with that in his own speech and there is no need for me to elaborate. Whatever the minister may do he has shown up to now that he is the minister of fishermen and that his policies have been in the interests, not only of the industry as a whole, but of the fishermen themselves. They know that whatever he may do he will act in their best interests, and he will not raise licence fees unnecessarily until such time as they are making an adequate income.
That adequate income is coming. This year I would say on the northeast coast of Newfoundland the increase in the amount of fish caught and the amount of money earned is something like 40 per cent over last year. The salaries are improving, not to the point where we would like to see them, but they are getting better. People are going back to the fishery who have not been in it for a long time. But I still do not think that we should be imposing two charges on fishermen, and this is something the minister will have to monitor.
There is something else I would like to mention, but we are running out of time. Better shore facilities go hand in hand with some measures that the Department of Fisheries have already taken regarding quality control. The wharves and breakwaters have to be in place. We have to build more of them, and we have built more of them. But regarding shore

facilities, we had to have measures such as the program we have put into effect on the northeast coast of Newfoundland.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is rising on a point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, from the point of view of the business of the House I would like to receive some confirmation from somebody on the other side of the House as to what we will be dealing with tomorrow when the House commences at two o'clock for business. I realize we are going to have a vote, but after we have gone through the niceties of the vote, what will be the government business?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the House announced last Thursday, unless there is a change in the program, we shall probably continue the study of Bill C-2 now before the House and then Bill C-17.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary. Will he please convey to the government House leader our anger, quite frankly, at failing to follow through this evening with the program which was announced a few days ago with respect to government business. I wonder whether he would ask the hon. gentleman to explain at some time why, without warning, he changed the order of government business. It is particularly important that he do so if there is to be any credence given to the matter of co-operation between parties in this House. If the government House leader is interested in proceeding apace with the business important to him, I think he should not forget the importance of the word "consultation."
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the continual practice of the leader of the House has been to respect the opinion of the opposition as concerns the legislative program. However, I believe that we must be flexible and understanding enough to recognize that there can be last minute changes. According to what I have been told, what has happened today is as follows, if I may have the attention of hon. members. During the question period, the parliamentary secretary to the minister concerned talked with the House leader of the opposition and also with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I see a member waving at me: we shall be able to have a talk after the late show this evening. At that time, Mr. Speaker, it was clearly stated that after studying Bill C-3, we would proceed this afternoon to the report stage of Bill C-2 and there was even some discussion with the House leader of the opposi-
January 31, 1978

tion and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre about the amendment which received unanimous consent this evening. I do not know if at that time it was understood that there would be a change in our program, but I want to say one thing: Last Thursday, when the government House leader announced the legislative program, he said that we would proceed this week to the study of Bills C-3, C-17 and C-2. Of course, if we consider what I have just said literally, normally Bill C-2 should have come after Bill C-17. But as I said in the beginning, I believe that sometimes, because of the circumstances, we must show some flexibility and understanding, and we do not usually seek to disregard the agreements or the programs discussed with opposition leaders.
A while ago, before rising on a point of order, the opposition leader talked to me and I suggested that he raise this question at the next private meeting of party leaders, which will probably be held Thursday as usual. At that time we might review the facts and perhaps make the necessary adjustments. In view of his point of order, I would ask to the opposition leader to demonstrate some flexibility. I am convinced that after the discussion with the parliamentary secretary following the question period today, if there had seen major objections to the consideration of Bill C-2 tonight he would have raised them and we would not have studied that bill. But as there were discussions on the amendment it seems that on this side of the House we took for granted that we could proceed with Bill C-2 before considering Bill C-17. If the opposition leader resents this I am sorry but I think that this kind of issue should be discussed during a private meeting between House leaders and not as a point of order. I do not think it contributes to the harmony of House business.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am not blaming the parliamentary secretary, and I want him to understand that, but I am suggesting that if there were representations made they were not made to me. I think it is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I think at this stage I might hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to extend this argument, but I should like to be sure that there is one point about tomorrow that is clear. A few moments ago for the first time it was said publicly, though we reached agreement sometime ago, that the vote on Bill C-19 would be taken tomorrow at or shortly after three o'clock. In view of the fact that on two occasions during the last few days the bell has rung for two hours, I hope it is understood, by ordering tonight this vote to take place at three o'clock tomorrow, that it will be a 15-minute bell.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. For the purpose of clarification and in an attempt to end this discussion, this is a matter of who is right and who is wrong, who said this and who said that. Presently both hon. members are
Business of the House
debating what the order of business should have been, even though the order of business has been established. I see no reason to entertain more points of order or more discussion concerning House business in view of the fact that it has been established.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am not discussing the matter which concerns Your Honour. Is it not a House order that there is to be a vote tomorrow at three o'clock? If that is the case, then the rule will make it a 15-minute bell.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, it was not public knowledge, so I do not see how there would be any public knowledge of it. I understand there will be a vote following the question period tomorrow, but when the hon. member indicates that it will be at three o'clock sharp, I am not sure. I have not seen the order. Perhaps the hon. member has seen the order indicating the time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, let's not quibble. Make it a 15-minute bell.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the vote to be taken tomorrow, I assume there will be an order made on unanimous consent. From my party's point of view, we are prepared to consent to a 15-minute bell. It will be very refreshing after experiencing two-hour bells on two occasions because of the absence of government members.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to participate in a debate at this time in the kind of fashion which has occurred. I think hon. members should be honourable, and the truth of the matter is: if a vote is called without an order and it is not a 15-minute bell, in many cases it is because there are members at meetings in this city who require 40 or 50 minutes to get to the chamber. That will occur time and time again if there is no notification in advance of a 15-minute bell. My understanding is that all House leaders have agreed to something. They are the ones who should tell us about this. Tonight we have heard that no other agreements should be made, because one House leader has indicated that he was not consulted. I respect him fully for that. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said something about it not being public knowledge, and then he is asking me to guarantee bells. I will guarantee bells when it is public knowledge.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I gather there is no understanding. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was seeking a guarantee from the government benches that there would be a limited bell. From what I gather, there is none. Therefore, I cannot see why we should continue to entertain-


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said. I am trying to point out very clearly that the two House leaders who are present are talking about discussions which they have had privately. I cannot confirm those discussions because I was not there. I understood there was to be a vote after question

January 31, 1978
Adjournment Debate
period. Since I have knowledge of that, one would presume it would be a 15-minute bell and that the whips would honourably, as they always do, settle this. If hon. members are going to begin to instruct whips from one side of the House to the other, then we will not know who is in charge of bells. In my case I presumed it would be a 15-minute bell.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In an attempt to end this discussion, perhaps I could ask for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent that there be a 15-minute bell?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Then, I think the question posed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been answered.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be indicated that the vote will occur following orders of the day and not the question period. I say that simply for clarification.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, on December 14, 1977 I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) a question in the House concerning the alleged danger to infants from breast feeding, particularly by mothers whose milk contains high levels of DDT and PCBs, or polychlorinate biphenyls. The PCBs are industrial chemicals which pollute water and air, and eventually our food, and are found in higher levels than they should be in mothers' milk.
I am concerned about this and would like to know whether there is any correlation between the increase in levels of DDT and the weight of the patient. We know that DDT is stored in the fatty tissues of animals and fish. Suppose that one woman weighs a couple of hundred pounds and another one weighs 125 pounds, and suppose both women give birth. Does the mother who is obese carry more DDT and biphenyls in her body, and consequently in her breast milk with which she feeds her baby, than the thinner mother?
The second question I would like to put concerns lower levels of these substances found in cows' milk. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Robinson), who has been

interested in this kind of work for some time, what tests have been carried out on cows, whether on dairy cows or first calvers, and for what period of time. Could he also tell me whether any beef cows were tested, because there is a great difference between those two animals so far as storage of fat is concerned. I would like to know also whether we have a central laboratory where those tests can be carried out.
Statistics indicate that only about one in four mothers nurse their babies for various lengths of time. This is less than in the past and less than in undeveloped countries where babies are nursed for months.
I also have the following question and I wonder whether the department is prepared to do some research on it. Suppose a mother weighing 140 pounds goes on nursing her baby and then loses weight. Will the amount of DDT and biphenyls in her body accumulate or decrease? If it accumulates, it would be paramount for pediatricians to keep the weight of mothers at the same level so that they would not be storing DDT and biphenyls in their body fat. Does the government have facilities at present in any province in Canada for testing milk, and are there facilities for testing drugs which may have been ingested by mothers?
9 (2217)
One case which comes to my mind involved a woman who underwent a bone graft in her back. She had a degenerating spine. Unfortunately, she developed the morphine habit because of all the pain she experienced. She overcame the habit. She later had a baby, and I often wonder about this because there was some problem with that baby. I wonder if tests have been done.
Dr. Morrison mentioned that there were 350 investigations now underway, and I wonder what those investigations cover. Do they cover drugs and chemicals? We know that phenylephrine are found in sprays, cold tablets and so forth and that if a person uses hypertension pills, or pills for high blood pressure, he may get into serious trouble. I wonder how much we know about these things, if our testing is accurate and how many places we have where those substances can be accurately tested so that we can be sure of the results.
DDT can be found in large fish and in beef. However, if fatty parts are trimmed off, the amount of DDT will naturally be cut down. Freshwater fish are loaded with contamination, and we must keep these things in mind.
Cattle drink water from streams and creeks where DDT, insecticides and other chemicals are found. They wash into the water. The cattle drink that water, and yet the tests show a lower concentration in cows' milk than that found in mother's milk. Mothers should surely be protected more than animals. Do we have laboratory facilities for tests? In view of the fact that only one in four mothers nurse, would it not be wise to test them all and if necessary resort to cows' milk?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his time has expired.
January 31, 1978


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) has raised a number of questions, and I am quite sure we will read the record at a later date and respond to them. In the meantime, I would like to respond to the specific question the hon. member raised on December 14, 1977.
At that time the hon. member asked the minister whether her department was doing anything to provide any information to expectant or nursing mothers about diets which are low in pesticides and other chemical contaminants. In responding to this question the following points can be made. The information from several years of monitoring indicates that the amounts of pesticide in the total diet are much lower than those which have been set as the maximum safe level by the World Health Organization. For example, the amount of DDT in the total diet in 1974 was found to be only 0.5 per cent of the acceptable daily intake as set out by the World Health Organization.
Pesticides and other organic contaminants tend to accumulate in fatty foods. The Department of National Health and Welfare advocates the adoption by the public of a prudent diet which emphasizes consumption of increased amounts of fruits, vegetables and whole grain cereals and decreased amounts of sugar and fat. We encourage also the substitution of low fat milk and other similar modified products for conventional high fat items. Such a diet would be expected to contain reduced levels of fat soluble pesticides and other chemical contaminants.
Women of child-bearing age living in the Great Lakes system, including the St. Lawrence River valley, are advised to exercise caution in the consumption of locally caught game fish such as coho and Chinook salmon, eels and catfish. Only an occasional meal of locally caught fish of these species should be consumed by women of child-bearing age from the geographical areas mentioned. The forementioned Canadian guideline of two parts per million PCBs-polychloro biphenyls-for fish is the strictest in the world to our knowledge, and is carefully monitored by the fisheries and marine services branch of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment. Canadians can therefore be assured that commercial fish does not contain unsafe levels of PCBs.
An insert providing informative warning information for women of child-bearing age is being prepared for inclusion with the March 1978 family allowance cheques. This information will provide general dietary advice and specific information about reducing dietary fat intake.
I should like to point out to the hon. member that, as he asked a number of questions subsequent to the one on December 14, I will undertake on behalf of the minister to see that a letter is sent to him setting out what the department is doing on the matters he has raised which are very important.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, last January 27 I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) to get information from the Ontario Minister of Education about the conditions required to make French an official language in that province. I must recall that Ontario Premier William Davis wrote recently, and I quote:
The Ontario government does not intend at the present time to take any step to make French an official language of the province.
That rather startling announcement contains two notions that seem conflicting at first glance. It represents a categorical and absolute refusal. One remains temporarily shocked and stunned by its apparent finality. However, the Ontario premier did not close the door completely. He said: Not at the present time.
Such a statement makes us believe that the government of Ontario might change its mind if the situation evolved and that it would indeed agree to change its position if certain approaches were made. What would be those circumstances, those conditions, those prerequisites? I would like to say in passing that apparently some members have blamed me for my intervention in the House last Friday, perhaps because I was dealing with an issue concerning the province of Ontario. However, my intervention was valid and honest. I do not consider that I have narrow responsibilities as a member. I do not think I should deal only with problems concerning my riding in New Brunswick or other Atlantic provinces. I have the right and the privilege and even the duty and the intention of intervening to a greater degree in all questions pertaining to the fate of French Canadians everywhere across my country and of doing so beyond artificial barriers represented by jurisdictions. I challenge all other provinces to do as much for the two official language groups as has been done in the province of New Brunswick since the sixties under the government of Louis Robichaud and to a certain degree under the present administration.
In my opinion, the two linguistic communities of New Brunswick deserve greater credit for their achievements even if there is still a lot of progress to be made in such sectors as language, schools, services, than for instance Quebeckers who so far have gone through a smooth evolution under the umbrella of constitutional guarantees.
When Premier Davis states that he has no intention of taking any step to make French an official language and adds in the same breath specifying that such is his intention "at the present time", I feel as indignant and outraged as the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) himself felt. Yet I still hope and seriously believe that the Ontario government is willing to make some concessions. This is why I am asking the Secretary of State to look into it, to negotiate, to improve the dialogue. Is it Bill 101 in Quebec that Mr. Davis finds shocking? Is it the proposal made by Mr. Rene Levesque at the St. Andrews conference that is bothering him? Let him speak out frankly, let his education minister reveal the abcess so it may be lanced right now, but for goodness's sake let us not put in the balance the cultural life and language of Franco-Ontarians. Let them

January 31, 1978
Adjournment Debate
grant French official status in Ontario. It would be like pouring oil on a tormented sea, but above all it would amount to a demonstration of equity and justice.
The lame excuse that Ontario does not now have the resources to provide the required services which would automatically be needed once French gained official status is an easy way out.
That point was made recently by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Young) when answering a question put by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Fie referred to the serious administrative impact of support personnel, not to mention the fact that in some provinces a start would have to be made from scratch. He was referring of course to the judicial area, our Canadian courts.
Time and good will can in my view overcome such obstacles. The province of New Brunswick has still less resources than Ontario, however, it did not wait for everything to be in place and perfectly developed to act. At this point in our history, in these times of emergency, Ontario has a unique opportunity! I am convinced the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) will spare neither time nor effort to offer his most sincere co-operation, with the rather significant federal resources, to encourage that province to take the next logical step. This would be a gesture so significant it would raise new hopes for the future of our country among those most depressed by the current situation.


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my answer of January 27 to the question put by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), I was very disappointed by the position taken by Ontario's premier concerning the official language policy and the recognition of the French language as an official language in Ontario.
As I said, I was very disappointed because I had hoped the Ontario government would accept the request we put forward in "A National Understanding" for implementation at the provincial level of the bilingualism principles proposed by the federal government.
Unfortunately, I was taken aghast by Ontario's refusal, and I shared the feelings of the hon. member.
As very aptly indicated by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), it seems to me that the Ontario premier left the door open to a change of attitude on the subject of the recognition of the French language as a second official language in Ontario.
I shall be meeting with the Ontario Minister of Education next spring, at the meeting of the Council of Ministers of Education. My colleague from Madawaska-Victoria may rest assured that the issue will be raised with him, and I shall do my best to convince the Ontario government to review their position on the matter.

[DOT]	(2227)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-PRIME MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE THAT SOVIET SATELLITE CONTAINED NUCLEAR PACKAGE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the events of the past week made us look again at the provisions we have made for space exploration and the use of outer space. In questioning the minister involved last week, it became apparent there are major gaps in the system of international treaties governing outer space. Three aspects or the recent events seem to be of particular importance in highlighting these gaps.
First, the Soviet Union co-operated with us and earlier with the United States only after they were requested to do so. Second, the Soviet Union acted on a bilateral basis in this affair, apparently making no contacts with international organizations. Thus, only those countries which the United States or the Soviet Union chose to inform had advance warning of the danger. The satellite fell over an area which is not only sparsely populated, but in a country which eventually knew that a dangerous satellite was in trouble and which therefore had made some slight preparation.
Finally, in the search which is being conducted, the entire cost is up to now being borne by Canada and the United States, unless U.S.S.R. asks for the return of the debris under the provisions of article 5 of Treaty 1975 No. 6, the agreement on the return of objects launched into outer space. This section can and has been misinterpreted, I believe, in that article 5 states that expenses incurred in fulfilling obligations to recover and return the space object or its component parts under paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be borne by the launching authority. However, paragraphs 2 and 3, the operative parts, contain the words "contingent upon the requisition by the launching authority". So if the U.S.S.R. does not ask for the debris back it will not be liable for the cost of recovering the same. I presume it must have done so because yesterday the minister said the Soviet Union would meet its responsibilities.
[DOT]	(2232)
These circumstances are the consequence of some basic shortcomings in the treaties which deal with problems which could arise from mankind's use of space. The agreements all fail to take into account two important facts. First, while banning "any objects carrying nuclear weapons", the treaty-makers did not prohibit the inclusion of dangerous amounts of fissionable material in satellites. The treaty-makers seem not to have realized that a situation could arise in which an unarmed satellite would, upon re-entry, pose a threat to a wide area, that is, a threat apart from the immediate physical damage caused by impact.
In the second place they do not take into account the rapid advances in satellite tracking technology and thus ignore the opportunities presented by the fact that there are often significant lengths of time in which to prepare ourselves before a satellite re-enters the atmosphere. Neither do the accords take cognizance of the coming of the space shuttle orbiters. These should be in operation in two years' time and within five years

they should be of great help in relieving us from the dangers we were facing last week.
The remedy for these shortcomings lies, I believe, in simple amendments to the treaties themselves. First, the convention on the registration of objects launched into outer space should be amended so that, in addition to the basic orbital parameters, the launching states would be required to notify the Secretary General of the UN of the inclusion of any fissionable material in a satellite. Perhaps in order to avoid difficulties and red tape in connection with safe scientific experiments there should be some minimum amount provided for, such as 100 grams, below which no notification would be required. An exemption of this sort could no doubt be arranged after discussion with the technical experts.
The second change which should be made is an addition requiring the launching state to notify the Secretary General of the United Nations whether any satellite re-entering the atmosphere contains any material, fissionable, chemical or biological, which could present a safety threat if it reached earth. Notification to this effect should be made as soon as it is ascertained that the satellite is likely to re-enter the atmosphere. The Secretary General in turn would notify any state over which the satellite was passing.
Third, once a satellite has been classified by this method as potentially dangerous, states with satellite tracking capability-presumably the United States and the U.S.S.R.-would be required to keep the Secretary General informed of the expected time and location of re-entry. Once a location could be predicted, the Secretary General and the heads of the states affected are to be informed.
Finally, reasonable costs of searching for and containing the contamination, even if the search is only to confirm that the satellite was entirely consumed during re-entry, should be treated as damages under the existing convention of international liability for damage caused by space objects. This would make it possible to recover such costs. In addition, article XXI of Treaty No. 1 would permit the affected state to seek assistance from the launching state in this search and containment operation.
Taken together, these suggestions would, if implemented, give us a safer world, one in which the risks to the population at large inherent in space exploration and use would be reduced. The government should learn from its experience of the ad hoc and frequently inefficient train of communication evident in the past week's crisis and press vigorously for the changes I have outlined.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I express my appreciation to the hon. member for drawing the attention of the House of Commons and of Canadians generally to this important subject.
Adjournment Debate
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated to the hon. member, in response to his question concerning the briefings at NORAD during his visit there in late December, that he was advised that NORAD headquarters were monitoring all the satellites and other man-made objects in space and that the headquarters were aware of the situation. Fie also stated that they went into some detail at his briefings which he did not think it was appropriate for him to disclose.
The hon. member must know from the responses to various questions given by the Prime Minister and the Ministry of National Defence that Canada and the United States have had complete and harmonious co-operation on all aspects dealing with the Cosmos satellite. Before January 20, 1978 when the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) were briefed on the probability of the Cosmos landing on earth and a possibility that it may be in Canada, there was no requirement for a detailed disposition of the Cosmos as it was not apparent that its disorientation would affect North America. In fact, it was considered that it may land in the south Atlantic or sometime later in the year, probably in the month of April 1978.
The Minister of National Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff have openly and frankly reported on all aspects of this event and continue to do so the minute new information is available. They will continue to do so until the matter has been finalized. At this time, the Canadian and American armed forces and Department of Energy, Mines and Resources' officials and other agencies and officials concerned with the operation continue to operate in close co-operation with the forces' information officials in Edmonton and are providing details of the operation to the news media as soon as communications permit.
The Canadian forces' officials were informed of the disorientation of the Cosmos as early as September 1977. Details of its progress were reported as its disposition changed. At each stage, higher levels of authority were advised, culminating with the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister several days prior to the final plunge. As the Minister of National Defence has stated several times, he is satisfied that he received timely information on the Cosmos through proper channels following recognized procedures.
I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that he has made other representations as well which will be taken into consideration by the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Therefore this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.38 p.m.

Wednesday, February 1, 1978