1978-03-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The latest promotional program of Air Canada, called "Share Canada", under Maritime Explorer Tours, Atlantic Freedom, Canaplan, Canadapass, Canada Fly Drive, Summertime Spectaculars, Motorhome Camping Vacations, and others, extols the virtues of holidaying in every province but Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House directs the Minister of Transport to correct this discriminatory oversight by Air Canada and that immediate appointments be made to the board of directors to include those provinces to ensure recognition of Newfoundland and Saskatchewan as important sectors of our nation in all phases of economic activity and to allow all Canadians to enjoy the beauty and attraction of those provinces, as well as the others.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity. Considering that it is important to grant to Francophone minorities a status at least
similar to that granted to the English minority in Quebec; considering that an unbiased, conscientious and dynamic organization represents the entire Francophone community outside Quebec; and considering that the Federation des Francophones hors Quebec has taken in charge the fate of such minorities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the government recognize the Federation des Francophones hors Quebec as the valid party for any negotiation or agreement concerning Francophone minorities in each Canadian province.


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.


COMMONWEALTH DAY-PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIGH COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps hon. members will join with me, before beginning question period, in calling attention to the significance of this day, Commonwealth Day. I have had the good fortune and honour, on behalf of parliament, of inviting some members of the House of Commons to a reception-luncheon to receive the High Commissioners of Commonwealth countries.
Perhaps we might pause for a moment before the question period to call attention to their presence in the gallery and to recognize the significance and value of our connection with the Commonwealth of Countries which all of us support and regard as an association of countries long past the historical sense and now having reached a voluntary association of peace-loving countries who espouse the best of all ideals between the developed and developing nations. It is an association between those who endeavour to reach out and help each other, which in that connection has some basis in history but, more importantly, in modern times it is a voluntary arrangement of friendship and association of the best ideas espoused by all of us in public life.
I hope that all members of the House will join me in signalling the presence of these Commonwealth High Commissioners, to call once more into attention and prominence the

March 13, 1978
Oral Questions
importance of our birthright and our connection with the Commonwealth of Nations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. We have now had an opportunity to review the preliminary prospectus filed by Canada with the SEC in Washington, covering the issue of $750 million in foreign bonds to be sold in that country, and the prospectus indicates:
-the bonds will be free of all present and future taxes imposed by Canada or any province thereof or by any taxing authority thereof or therein-
In view of this, would the Minister of Finance indicate why it was felt advisable-indeed, even necessary-to propose such a luscious deal to those who might be buying these bonds?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, at this moment I do not have any comment. I will look into the matter. I do not have the text that has been used by the hon. member, and 1 would like to review it before I answer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would have assumed that the Minister of Finance would have reviewed this prospectus thoroughly, and I am rather surprised he is using the "out" that he does not know the wording. Let me ask a further question. The prospectus also states that the underwriting agreement which presumably will be signed by the government and various underwriters will be conditional upon there being-
-no material adverse change or any development involving a prospective material adverse change in the financial, economic or political conditions of Canada from those set forth in the registration statement.
My question to the minister is whether officials in the Department of Finance have received an unqualified legal opinion that the deficit, which is estimated to be $14 billion in the current year, is not a material change which would break this contract, bearing in mind that such a deficit might be 50 per cent larger than the deficit disclosed in this prospectus.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am glad that the market does not take the hon. member too seriously, because he is always throwing about some big figures and starting rumours that have no basis in reality. That is why I know those people do not pay too much attention to the hon. member.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If the minister wishes to end the rumours to which he is referring, would he indicate in the House today the budgetary deficit for the fiscal year 1979?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will be delighted to give that information to the House when I introduce my next budget.


REGISTRATION OF BONDS STATEMENT FILED WITH UNITED STATES SEC
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: My question is to the Minister of Finance: it relates to the prospectus issued by the government which states, on page 36, that a registration statement relating to the bonds on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission contains further information. Given the fact that last Wednesday the minister gave the unconditional guarantee that no information would be made available to the SEC which was not made available to the House of Commons-as reported at page 3562 of Hansard-will the minister now table in the House the registration statement relating to bonds so that we may have all the information available to the SEC?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when the time comes I will be delighted to give that information to the House.


James McPhail Gillies: May I point out, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come. That statement has been made available to an agency of the U.S. government, the SEC; it is there now. The minister gave the unconditional guarantee that he would give no information to the SEC that he would not at the same time make available to the House. In keeping with the agreement the minister made in this House last Wednesday, I am asking him to table that statement in the House today.
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said in the House last week that any information provided to the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States would already have been made public in Canada. I have not altered my opinion and in due time I will table that paper in the House.


James McPhail Gillies: When will the minister make those documents available? They will be no good to us five weeks from now. I want them made available today because the minister guaranteed last Wednesday that he would. Last Wednesday the minister said that when information went to the SEC, nothing would go to the SEC that was not made available to the people of Canada through the House of Commons. That statement is in the hands of the SEC today and I want it tabled in the House of Commons this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has no problem with humility; he wants to order me to table those things.


James McPhail Gillies: You said you would.
March 13, 1978


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I said that no information would be put into that document which would not be made public in this country. I will table that document in the House of Commons when it is appropriate to do so. I do not think it would be appropriate to do so today.


James McPhail Gillies: You said you would.


GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES TO NEB ON GAS RESERVES FOR CANADIAN NEEDS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the announcement that Northwest Energy Corporation, a partner of Foothills in the construction of the northern pipeline, has just signed contracts for Alberta gas which will increase Canadian exports to the United States by 37 per cent. In view of the fact that Canada's long-term prospects for gas are not reassuring, what guidelines has the government given the National Energy Board regarding the amount of gas reserves which must be held to meet future Canadian needs, and what percentage will be declared surplus to our national requirements and allowed to be exported?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is somewhat premature. The application has yet to be presented to the National Energy Board for a decision and, as I am sure the hon. member is also aware, it will depend a good deal on the Alberta government and the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board assessment of the reserves position in that province as to whether gas would be available for export on a swap basis.
I have noted the interest with respect to the application to move, as the hon. member has indicated, close to a billion cubic feet of gas to the United States. I understand that that particular proposal is on the basis of a swap arrangement whereby Canadians would have a call on future gas reserves from Alaska, and to that extent this proposal is consistent with the position the government has already made public.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has said, this could mean the export of a billion cubic feet of gas per day to the United States under some type of swap arrangement. I therefore ask the minister if what we have been told, that the Alcan gas pipeline was to take Arctic gas to the United States, is now being put in second place, and the primary purpose of this pipeline now will be to take cheap Alberta gas to the United States in order to give Canadians the "privilege" of buying expensive Arctic gas in the future.
I ask the minister if that is the understanding which has been reached between the government, Foothills and Northwest Energy Corporation. Also, will he tell the House the terms upon which such as a swap arrangement will be made?
Oral Questions
Are we to buy dear gas and sell cheap gas: is that the swap arrangement the government has in mind?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on the first point, quite clearly the government's interest in the Foothills (Yukon) pipeline in energy terms is to gain access to Canadian supplies at low cost. The option for Canada is that we will be able to move Canadian supplies to Canadian customers for less money than the United States will be able to move their gas to United States' customers. As to the details of the swap arrangement, I have to say that I do not believe they have got them worked out. The kind of guarantees the hon. member is seeking are very much present in our minds as well.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the final arrangement would have to be approved by the cabinet, and in view of the fact that originally in the National Energy Board there was a stipulation that the government had to hold 21 years of gas in reserve, and that provision was taken out, I ask the minister if he will tell the House, in all fairness, the quantity of gas the National Energy Board will be asked to keep in Canada before declaring that any other gas is surplus to national requirements.
Surely that ought to be known. It is not a matter for the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board or any other agency. The Canadian government will have to approve any export of gas recommended by the National Energy Board, and this parliament has a right to know how much gas is to be held for the future requirements of the Canadian people.


Alastair William Gillespie: As the hon. member knows, the National Energy Board is charged by parliament with this responsibility. We will be looking to the National Energy Board for advice on whether the gas that is proposed might be moved on some kind of accelerated or swap basis will in any way change the situation as far as that gas being surplus to Canadian needs is concerned. If it is on a swap basis-which I understand it is intended that gas would be-I cannot see that that would change in any way the whole question of surplus, or not surplus, to Canadian needs.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The price will change.

[ Translation]


HOUSING
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.

March 13, 1978
OraI Questions
Some time ago, the minister implied that RRAP would be extended throughout Canada without consideration for obstacles that could occur at provincial level. Could he say now to the House if he is going to institute that program? Will he also announce it soon?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Negotiations are currently going on with each province to extend designations under RRAP, more likely in all rural Canada and in a greater number of Canadian cities. RRAP already applies to almost all rural Canadian territory and, of course, that means we will have to increase considerably the funds available for such a program. That is what we will do and at the same time we will urge those who are responsible for the implementation of that program to serve first families which have lower incomes, second those who live in the oldest houses of the country, and third, they will be asked to give priority to people inhabiting regions already designated under this program.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, does that mean that it will no longer be necessary for a rural area to get the approval of the provincial government, and here I am thinking specially of the province of Quebec, because now the area must be designated by the provincial government? Will that provision disappear, and will that cover the whole area, as the minister just said, without having to get provincial authorization to determine an area?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the approval of the provincial authorities will always be needed for designating purposes. Still, in the case which surely interests the hon. member, I can say that our negotiations with the provincial authorities have enabled us to extend designations widely to all rural areas of the province of Quebec.


REQUEST FOR FURTHER FUNDS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as this matter is extremely important, and in view of the numerous requests we get in this regard, will the funds be increased considerably to allow approval of a rather large number of requests so that more people can benefit from this program I consider absolutely marvellous? An hon. member of the opposition does not often say things like that!


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, naturally we will increase considerably the funds allotted to each province of Canada for the application of this program. But as we suspect that those funds will not be sufficient to meet the demand, we are therefore recommending that applications from low-income earners be dealt with first, and secondly those of people who live in the oldest houses in the country, and thirdly, those from areas that were first designated. Nothwithstanding those three basic recommendations, obviously we will have to increase, probably double, or even triple, the funds allotted to each province: we hope to be in a position to do so.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister, in a press conference over the weekend, confirmed that the Economic Council of Canada will be acting as a monitoring agency in the post-control strategy of the government after the Anti-Inflation Board finishes its mandate. He also confirmed that the agency will not have any authority to inquire into or act upon specific wage and price increases.
I would like to ask the minister, in light of the paradox that this proposes for an agency which will be acting post facto-in other words, before it can report to the government, it will have to identify wage and price increases in a specific sector or company-what agency does the government intend to use to act on such wage or price increases that have been so identified by the ECC, in view of the fact there will be no legislative authority after the AIB mandate finishes on April 15?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have said that after April 14 we are going back to the market-place and we do not intend to have legislation that will give power to the government to roll back either wages or price increases.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain to the House why the Economic Council of Canada has not been given the legislative authority to examine or investigate areas of potential wage and price increases that would go beyond the guidelines? In other words, the only role they will have will be to analyse statistics which are already in the public domain, the statistics from Statistics Canada, a role which the cabinet itself could carry out. I ask the minister why the Economic Council has not been given the legislative authority that the Food and Prices Review Board had, to inquire into and open up the books in areas where the guidelines have been exceeded.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have decided that after April 14 we will not have controls. The hon. member is trying to find a way to keep controls. Members of the opposition should make up their minds. They have been asking us to remove controls for the past two years.


James Aloysius McGrath: What the minister is telling the House and the country is that the government, in fact, has no post-control strategy. That is the situation facing us today. I ask the minister to tell the House what authority or what method of operation the government has in mind once a problem area has been identified by the ECC as going beyond the guidelines.

March 13, 1978

How would the government act, faced with such a report by the ECC?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are not planning to have a roll-back provision in any legislation. We are hoping people will understand the consequences of being under controls. We are removing controls. The Economic Council of Canada will look at price and wage developments and make comments. If it sees a difficult situation, perhaps we can have a specific inquiry. We are going to back in the market-place. We hope the public will react as we have some indication they will; they are very responsible.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. As Your Honour mentioned, today is the anniversary of the Commonwealth. Today is also the sixty-fifth anniversary of the first woman obtaining a pilot's licence in Canada. Eileen Vollick received her pilot's licence on this date in 1913, flying a Curtis Jenny biplane. In view of the fact that women have been licensed as pilots for the past 65 years in Canada, can the minister explain why it is still the policy of the Department of National Defence not to have any women pilots in National Defence, in view of their obvious acceptance by the Ministry of Transport for over 50 years?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this is a subject that is constantly under review.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barnett Jerome Danson: The difficulty really resolves itself in relation to women serving in combat, which is something, quite frankly, we have not come to grips with: no western nation really has. Our pilots are versatile and must perform many roles. It does create a problem-one which we are examining-in so far as women serving in combat is concerned. We have not yet made a decision as to what is an appropriate role, after the experience of other nations which have tried that and found it quite demoralizing, not because women cannot stand it but because men in combat with them emotionally are not able to accept it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this must establish a new record of constant review, having gone on for 65 years. Combat is only one of the areas where women pilots in other countries have performed with remarkable effectiveness and skill. What steps is the department actually taking to resolve this very serious anomaly in its structures? In view of the constant review that has been going on for over half a century,
Oral Questions
can the minister indicate when the review will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the constant review has resulted in concrete results in the armed forces, where women are increasingly effective in the roles in which they are serving. Just this past week I announced the addition of women to the advisory council to the Canadian military colleges. This matter has received active consideration. I have spent a great deal of time with my officials and senior commanders in all areas, and women are increasing their role in the Canadian armed forces. We have not made the decision to put them in roles where they either have to be in combat or rotate with those in combat, due to the manning ratios we have to live with.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the concern expressed by a number of young women who in recent years have applied for admission to the armed forces in a variety of skills and tasks, is the minister prepared to table in this House within the next few weeks a statement as to the number of trades and skills that are still prohibited from the interests of women? Will he also give some indication, in terms of the career and officer training program with respect to military colleges, in view of the comment he just made, of how soon there may be a satisfactory resolution of the very real discrimination that exists with respect to complete training facilities for women in Canada's armed forces?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there certainly is no secret in this respect and there is no difficulty in tabling a document. However, it would be much more fruitful for the hon. member to come to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence tomorrow evening, where I will be delighted to answer those questions.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. The Canadian Periodical Publishers Association will ask the Supreme Court of Ontario this week to declare current postal rates for letters and magazines invalid. Is the Postmaster General aware of this, and the fact that it will throw considerable doubt on the federal government's right to collect the increase on first- and second-class postage rates scheduled for April 1 ?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest I replied last Friday to this question about the legality of the postal rate increases. I am aware that Mr. Rosenberg and his corporation is contesting their legality, and that there is a lot of conflicting opinion among counsels involved, even his own. The purpose is also to better balance the costs of the Post Office operation between Canadian
3700

March 13, 1978
Oral Questions
taxpayers and users. I know that these increases will yield some SI25 million in additional revenues to the Post Office, which will result in Canadian taxpayers paying less and users paying more. In my opinion, this is only fair.


Stan Darling: Will the Postmaster General table the opinion of the law officers of the Crown to which he referred in his reply to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris last Friday, in order to avoid continuing confusion?
[ Translation]


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, I indicated last Friday that we had obtained a legal opinion from the Department of Justice which is fully in our favour, and I suggest we are under no obligation to make it public at this time, and that we need to protect it, should a contestation arise, in order to defend our point of view better.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In last Saturday's Free Press, the Minister of National Revenue was quoted as saying that the federal government would be scrapping its plans to build a new Defence research centre in Winnipeg. Can the Minister of National Defence confirm whether that statement is true and, if so, can he explain why the government has dropped its plans, which will cost at least 200 jobs locally?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the need for that establishment was not sufficiently well established. There was a proposed use for it some time ago. On review, that use is no longer valid; it meant closing down other establishments in the west. There was also some difficulty in obtaining land to the satisfaction of the city. I spoke personally to the mayor who agreed that this was not an appropriate establishment for the location proposed. The hon. member will know that we announced the permanent establishment of a new Air Command headquarters in Winnipeg. This will be a very major establishment on a permanent basis. With other facilities, it will bring some $105 million a year into Winnipeg. That is a very significant benefit from the military to the city of Winnipeg.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, with regard to buying land in the city of Winnipeg, that is just an excuse; the federal government has many acres of land throughout Manitoba. The predecessor of the Minister of National Defence stated that there was an absolute need for this research centre. He said it was not a political promise and that the need still exists. This statement was made by him last Friday. In light of the federal

government having land there, and the former minister saying there is a need, will the minister explain why there is this confusion?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there was a need perceived a couple of years ago when that announcement was made. On the best advice I had, and after examining the situation rather thoroughly for somewhat over a year since I have been in this portfolio, it is not my view, as the current minister, that it is required. It is my view that a new Air Command headquarters is required in Winnipeg.


EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH SEARCH FOR SOVIET COSMOS SATELLITE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question for the Minister of National Defence with regard to the Cosmos satellite. First, has the minister read outer space treaties Nos. 6 and 7, and is he satisfied that we have complied with both treaties? Second, the minister assured the House on January 30 that he was keeping a careful record of expenses. Can he inform the House what the expenses of the search have been so far?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I have not read those treaties recently. The first time I read them, I thought it was quite enough. My advice is that we are complying with them. With regard to the second part of the question, we are keeping track of the expenses. The total recovery cost, from the point of view of the Department of National Defence, is in excess of $4.7 million at this time. That does not include other departments of the federal government.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I asked the minister if he had read the treaties, because they clearly differentiate between the cost of the search and the expenses and costs of damages. It seems the government has never been able to learn this clear differentiation. We seem to have convinced the Russians that they are to pay for the damages, which are nil, and they have convinced us we are to pay for the expenses, which will be nearly $5 million. This kind of a deal we can do without. Does the minister plan to point out to his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the expenses are no part of the damages and it says so in the treaty?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, that is clearly understood. There are two different parts. Certainly, the actual physical damage is somewhat limited, but the cost of determining the ecological damage, the danger to the environment and people, and recovering the parts is rather substantial. We consider that to be very much part of the damage, and it is related to the recovery of the satellite or parts thereof. That is very significant and we are making claims with regard to it, in addition to whatever the amount may be in relation to damage.
March 13, 1978


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Has the Government of Canada made any statement following the brutal slaughter of Israeli civilians, including children, on a holiday bus over the weekend, for which the Palestine Liberation Organization has apparently claimed full credit?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: The question asked by the hon. gentleman gives me the opportunity to express the view of the government. We feel a sense of shock at this tragic and senseless act of violence involving the loss of innocent human lives. In addition to expressing this sense of shock, I should like to add the hope that the occurrence will not imperil current efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace which is the paramount objective of all parties concerned in the Middle East.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In light of the fact that there is presently on the order paper, in the hon. gentleman's name, a motion asking the House to short-circuit some of the rules so as to pass supplementary estimates and grant interim supply, will the Deputy Prime Minister try to obtain for members of the House, or table before next Wednesday when this motion becomes due, a copy of the remarks of Mr. Douglas Hartle, a former official of Treasury Board, who speaking in Toronto over the weekend to members of the Liberal party gave examples of mismanagement and expenditure on the part of the government which shocked even some case-hardened Liberals?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is no effort to short-circuit the rules of the House. There is an effort to provide an additional day not provided for under the rules, so that hon. members may be able to debate interim supply. That proposal has already been cleared and has received the sanction of representatives of all parties in the House. So we are operating in an open and democratic manner, which ought to appeal to even a case-hardened Tory like the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Now that the hon. gentleman has had a chance to collect his thoughts, perhaps he could give some attention to attempting to answer the question I put to him. Would he try to answer that question, for my sake and for the sake of hon. members generally, and at the same time deal
Oral Questions
with the other statement made by Mr. Hartle when he said ministers were successfully evading Treasury Board, and what I characterize as the pack rat mentality of the government in hiding examples of their mismanagement and extravagance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member wants me to do. Maybe it is to provide him with a copy of Mr. Hartle's speech given, as I gather, to the Liberal Association. Perhaps he would like to be put on the mailing list for all Liberal publications, which would be a very useful contribution to rectifying the hon. member's deficient education.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General and is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. Why is the hon. gentleman ignoring the unanimous report of the committee on statutory instruments and regulations, an all-party committee chaired by the distinguished constitutional and legal authority, Senator Forsey, and the former hon. member for Halifax, Mr. McCleave, which indicated that to increase postal rates other than by amending the Post Office Act is strictly illegal?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I could give several answers to the numerous questions contained in the statement of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. I can tell him that I have never rejected the possibility of forming at a given moment an inter-parliamentary committee to study the question of the Post Office. But, at the present time, I think it would be perhaps premature to make public the decisions of the ongoing conciliation. It would be wiser to wait for the conciliation report to be tabled, for its results to be known; then we will see how we must act.
As for the illegality of raising the fees from 12 cents to 14 cents, I think the members of the opposition would show a much greater sense of co-operation if they tried to help us make the public understand that the increase is to relieve the taxpayers from a deficit of $125 million in the Post Office by charging it partly to the very users of postal services.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That was an interesting statement by the Postmaster General, but it did not answer the question I posed. There were Liberals on the committee on statutory instruments and regulations, and while there might be a need for increasing postal rates to deal with the rising deficit brought about by maladministration and the other problems which are all too evident in the Post Office, why does the hon. gentleman not proceed by the legal route rather than by the illegal route?
80033-22'/2

March 13, 1978
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, we will comply with the law and avail ourselves of section 13 of the Financial Administration Act.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. It has to do with subsidies on skim milk. In view of the fact that a litre of 2 per cent milk in Yellowknife costs $1.58, $2.90 in Norman Wells, and at Tuktoyaktuk a litre of milk, when it is available, costs $1.86-three pounds of powdered milk costs more than $5-does the parliamentary secretary have anything to report to the House regarding government policy as it concerns northerners, in relation to skim milk subsidies?


Mr. Yves Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, funds for the skim milk subvention program were cut off the 1978 budget mainly because it failed to meet its objectives; in fact, low income families did not avail themselves of the program.
I want to say to the hon. member that approximately $589 million are still available for low income families, through various support programs.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring a couple of facts to the attention of the parliamentary secretary, in the hope he might be able to advise the House what he plans to do. The subsidization of skim milk powder is extremely important to the Northwest Territories. Many of the people who live there are poor, and the cost of living generally is very high. Could the hon. gentleman tell us whether the government has any plans to meet the particular needs of the north in these circumstances?


Yves Caron: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the hon. member's question about remote areas and I will submit it to the minister.

[ English]


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Over the

weekend the Prime Minister explained that his western junket was taking government to the people. Also, the Deputy Prime Minister told us on Friday that he would be doing government business in the west. So that the people might have a better chance to judge the value of this type of excursion, does the government agree that the taxpayers have a right to know what this excursion is costing them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have never sought to conceal information with regard to the cost of travel once a question was put on the order paper.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I can assure the hon. gentleman there will be several questions on the order paper. Hopefully, we shall get answers before parliament dissolves.
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is of particular interest to the Deputy Prime Minister. After ten years, like Rip Van Winkle, the cabinet and the Prime Minister eloped and went west. Does the Deputy Prime Minister know whether there are plans to take this political road show into Atlantic Canada, where there is very real economic disparity and a real need for the government to communicate with the people?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that proposal is under consideration, but I am not sure the hon. member would survive the impact.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the serious and rising unemployment conditions as reported, for example, in today's Globe and Mail- with particular reference to Glasgow, Nova Scotia-what new initiative does the minister have in mind to focus more specifically his department's resources in the critical areas of disparity in this country, particularly bearing in mind the decline in real terms of his departmental budget?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: As always, Mr. Speaker, there is intensive work done in analyzing and examining with industrialists and the governments of the four Atlantic provinces every project likely to yield valid economic results. Those are constant analyses, and we have recently signed agreements with these governments. I believe that in the few weeks to come, and indeed
March 13, 1978

within a few days I hope, we will have the opportunity to go to New Brunswick where we will indicate the federal government's commitments through DREE with the New Brunswick government, which will allow for the creation of jobs and the economic development of a particular Atlantic province.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have every desire to see New Brunswick helped as much as possible, but my question was directed toward Nova Scotia specifically. I ask the minister whether he will take under serious advisement the setting out of funds to supply low interest, or non-interest bearing loans to create the promotion of permanent jobs to supplement the necessary temporary approach to creating jobs which we find in LIP and Canada Works?
Would the minister consider that as a policy option, and would he also consider checking to see whether the advertising campaign which seems to be run-for example, in the city of Montreal-to encourage people to take advantage of department opportunities, could also be extended to areas of just as great need, that is, in the Atlantic area?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, we will consider the hon. member's suggestion.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the indictment of federal government practices in respect of northern development as documented in a report of the Science Council of Canada released last week, a report which questions a statement made by one Digby Hunt, then in charge of Northern Affairs programs, to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and in view of the fact that Mr. Hunt has now denied the statement that he attempted to mislead the committee, is the minister prepared to submit this report to that standing committee for consideration and, if necessary, have Mr. Hunt appear before it?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has not been brought to my attention, but I will look into it and report to the hon. member.


REPORT ON INDIAN SCHOOLS IN SASKATCHEWAN- GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns the report by the Saskatchewan
Oral Questions
Cultural College on a survey of Indian schools in that province which showed that of 60 schools, 41 have inadequate sewage systems and 18 used a jet pump which spewed raw sewage over the playgrounds. Will the minister, whose department has copies of this report, tell the House why it has taken no action to bring to an end a situation which can only be described as shameful?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree at all with the hon. member's assessment of the conditions. In fact, at our meetings in Saskatchewan on Friday and Saturday, we had an opportunity to meet with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians and the Metis non-status people. We had some two hours of very good sessions, and these were the issues raised. I think we all resolved to go back and try to improve this situation.
There has been some improvement in recent years: I think the hon. member would agree with that. No one could be satisfied with the conditions, not only in respect of schools but in respect of health delivery services and a whole range of things on Saskatchewan reserves. Unfortunately, the problem is not confined to Saskatchewan reserves. I will be going over this problem with members of the committee when we discuss my estimates.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the minister was probably involved in a farewell tour of western Canada with members of this administration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Last year, an Indian boy died in a sewage lagoon, a direct result of these appalling practices. The survey also indicated that fire safety systems were well below standard in all but 10 of the 60 schools. Will the minister tell this House how his department allowed this sort of disgraceful situation to arise, and whether he will now, aside from discussing it internally, embark upon a nationwide study of the problems we are facing with regard to young Indian children which is, as I termed before, a disgraceful situation that should be given immediate priority?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, our assessment of our visit to Saskatchewan is quite different from that of the hon. member. I can understand that he is slightly chagrined by the warmth of the reception we received in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: I am not sure I can associate this side of the House with the suggestion that, given a compelling human problem of this kind, the Tory response would be to conduct a nationwide study. I think what we should try to do is deal with the problem, and not conduct another study.

March 13, 1978
Oral Questions FISHERIES


STORM DAMAGE TO FACILITIES-GOVERNMENT POLICY TO ASSIST FISHERMEN
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries, after a 900-mile trip to the seal hunt which was aborted. I wonder whether the minister has had a discussion with the provincial government regarding the increasing and recurring storm damage to gear and small craft harbour facilities along the western coast and, indeed, in all the Atlantic regions, which is stultifying the ability of fishermen to get back into the fishery, particularly with the high cost of gear which they cannot afford to replace. Are there any plans to formulate a program with the provinces?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member back. I am sorry that the direction of ice-floes did not allow him to be present and show his support for the seal hunters-one of whom, by the way, died recently on an ice-floe.
Having regard to the second point, Mr. Speaker, the problem of damage to wharves and harbours is being dealt with by the department. In fact, we have identified funds to undertake the work as soon as conditions allow us to do so. In the matter of gear and damage to fishermen's equipment, this has to be the subject of co-operation between the two levels of government: the disaster formula, as the hon. member knows very well, has to be triggered by provincial authorities. We are assessing the damage, but I have had no contact yet from the provincial government indicating that it wishes to trigger the disaster formula.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the report of that survey shows extensive damage to gear, and in view of the fact the minister of fisheries for the province has indicated an approach to the federal government in order to prevent this recurring stultification to fishermen getting back into the fishery, I wonder whether the minister would deem this as an emergency situation and initiate discussions with the provinces in an attempt to resolve this very serious problem.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly undertake to do what I can to accelerate progress.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Finance is similar to questions asked by the hon. member for Don Valley and the minister's clear implication then, and again on March 8, 1978, that the Parliament of Canada would be as fully informed as the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States on this venture into the American market.
In view of the fact that there appears, on the face of the agreement, to be a private file in the SEC, and in view of the undertaking the minister has given to the House about full disclosure, will he indicate whether there is an impediment to full disclosure placed upon him by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States and, if so, what is that impediment? If there is no impediment, as the minister seemed to imply, especially on March 8 and in his answer today, can he undertake to the House-it is important that we know as much as the Americans-when he will be making the information available he has made available to the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr.Speaker, first I should like to repeat that all information we gave in that prospectus which has found its way into the hands of members of the opposition is preliminary: it is a preliminary, not a final document, and is subject to some changes. So I would not like to move on the document at this moment. We will have to file the complete document. When everything is completed, I will be very happy to give that information.
I would like to inform the House also that, as usual, when the hon. member for York-Simcoe read from parts of the prospectus, he judged it useful to himself to quote only two lines and not to give the full explanation, thus creating an impression that has no basis in reality. In all legal documents there are some conditions which apply to the people who will be holding the bonds in the U.S. Taxes and all those elements have been verified by government lawyers. I think the hon. member again tried to mislead the House in quoting only parts of a long and complicated document.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Explain.


Walter David Baker: I want to assure the Minister of Finance that the questions are not to mislead; they are to elicit information and we would appreciate some reciprocity from the minister. The minister has indicated that this is a preliminary prospectus which indicates the government's intentions at the moment. One of those intentions is that future legislatures are bound, for a period of up to 20 years, by the commitment that these bonds will be free from all taxes, present and future, imposed by Canada or any province. This must involve some form of undertaking, either existing or contemplated, by the Government of Canada. Because there is $720 million worth of interest involved, is the government contemplating indemnity provisions to make these interest-free bonds, and is there something else the minister intends to disclose when he makes the full disclosure to which he has referred?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I repeat what I have said, that this is an extract from a long paragraph explaining the situation in terms of taxes for people who will be holding bonds outside the borders of Canada, and there is a provision there because there are some tax agreements between nations, and so on. This is a very complex legal document which the opposition is trying to

March 13, 1978

drag out in parts and pieces. It has been examined very thoroughly by government advisers in terms of legislation. There is absolutely nothing unusual about it. When the final prospectus is agreed upon and tabled, I will be making this document available to the House. I want to say, again, that there is nothing in the document, in terms of information, that is not known to knowledgeable people in Canada. Obviously, there are none on the other side.


Walter David Baker: Now that the government has indicated by this scheme, whatever it turns out to be when we see the final information, that it is engaging in the practice of tax-free bonds-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No.


Walter David Baker: Until I see otherwise, I am subject to being convinced that it is otherwise. But that is the position, or at least so it appears. Is the government considering giving a similar right to municipalities in Canada to issue tax-free bonds so that Canadian municipalities will have the advantages which at least appear on the face of this document to be given to investors and donors in other areas?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think the hon. member is trying to create a very false impression. It is not that at all. If he would read this document carefully-he is supposed to be a lawyer-he would understand that there are some tax laws in the United States and in Canada that do not apply in the same way. If you receive interest in the U.S., you pay your taxes there, and if you receive interest in Canada, you pay your taxes in Canada. Perhaps it is too complicated for the hon. member to understand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In the course of answering the first question of the three put by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, the Minister of Finance said that the hon. member for York-Simcoe had tried to mislead the House. I am sure, from the text of the question and from the context, that he did not intend to say that; that he intended to say he may have misled the House, or something less odious. The fact that he used the word "tried" makes it appear to be a deliberate attempt, and I think perhaps it might be better if that word were removed from the record.


Mr. Chr6tien:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that the hon. member would have given better information to the House if he had read out more than I'h lines of a paragraph about 30 lines long, but he judged not to do so. This creates an impression that is not very close to the truth. But he had the truth in front of him, which he did not want to use.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, before you made your comments, I intended to rise on a question of privilege, in that I would like the Minister of Finance to indicate in what way he feels I tried to mislead the House. I referred to a paragraph that is in the preliminary prospectus filed by the government in Washington. The paragraph reads:
Solar Energy
The bonds ... will be free of all present and future taxes imposed by Canada or any province thereof or by any taxing authority thereof or therein-
Then it goes on to state that it is not applicable to Canadians. In other words, Canadians will be taxable, yet they will be tax-free as far as foreigners are concerned. The other two paragraphs deal with entirely different subjects. They deal with the effect of succession duties in Canada and with the effect of taxation in the U.S. My point, as you have said in your remarks, is that in no way have I tried to mislead the House. I asked a very simple question: why was it necessary for the government to offer this rather luscious tax treatment with respect to these bonds?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a difference of opinion between the hon. member and myself about the meaning of that clause; that is all. I said it would have been advisable to read more of it. I do not want to imply some devilish intention in the words of the hon. member. Perhaps I did not use the right word. The facts speak for themselves. I think my explanation clarifies the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has put an explanation on the record. He indicated, as I hoped he would, that he was saying that perhaps the full text might have a different interpretation than that put by the hon. member. I think he has endeavoured to indicate to the House that he did not attempt to accuse the hon. member of any ill will or anything else.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: for leave to introduce Bill C-425, to establish the Canadian Solar Energy Institute.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, this bill calls for the creation of a Canadian solar energy institute. It was introduced in the knowledge that conventional fuel supplies on this planet are diminishing. The proposed Canadian solar energy institute would play a key role in the establishment of a Canadian solar equipment industry, leading to the creation of new jobs. It would encourage and promote the use of renewable energy resources and help to reduce our dependence and that of future generations of Canadians on non-renewable sources of energy.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
March 13, 1978
Supply
[Translation]
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT Motion agreed to.
AMENDMENT CONCERNING RIDINGS OF BONAVENTURE-iLES-DE-LA-MADELEINE AND MATAPfiDIA-MATANE


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-426, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act,	Bona ven ture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine and Matapedia-
Matane.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
Mr. De Bank Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change slightly the electoral boundaries for Matapedia-Matane to avoid the division of one village between two ridings.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   Wm. Andres@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 554,712, 1,175 and 1,190.


Mr. Howie: During the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what amount was spent by the government on (i) in-house (ii) outside house research and development, in respect to energy derived from renewable resources?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the
National Research Council is concerned:


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with a pre-arranged and pre-negotiated understanding I would like to call the following motion, which I trust will be passed, in accordance with the understanding, without any debate. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, on Wednesday, March 15, 1978, being the final allotted day in the present supply period, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of adjournment, proceedings then in progress shall be interrupted and every question as may be necessary to dispose of any item or items of supplementary estimates, the restoration or reinstatement of any item in the supplementary estimates, or any opposed item in the supplementary estimates, and for the passage of any bill based thereon shall be put forthwith successively, without amendment or debate;
That, immediately thereafter, the questions on a motion to grant interim supply and for first reading of a bill based thereon shall be put forthwith successively, without amendment or debate; and
That, on Thursday, March 16, 1978, the business taken up shall be the second reading, consideration in committee of the whole, report stage and third reading of the bill based upon the motion for interim supply and that, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of adjournment on that day, proceedings then in progress shall be interrupted and every question necessary for the disposal of the said bill shall be put forthwith successively, without amendment or debate;
Provided that, on both the aforementioned days, the House shall not adjourn until all business referred to in this Order is disposed of.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) can be dealt with now only upon the consent of the House. Does the minister have consent to move that motion at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
[Mr. Caccia.l
Federal Government Funding of Renewable Energy R & D
Fiscal Year Ending
March, 31	Dollars
Per cent Extramural
(a)	1975
(b)	1976
(c)	1977
855,000	(not available for	this	fiscal year)1.578.000	(not available for	this	fiscal year)4.433.000	64 per cent


Mr. Howie: 1.	How many contracts have been awarded by the government for the design and installation of solar heating systems in houses in Canada?
2.	What was the value of each contract?
3.	In what locations are the heating systems being installed?


J. Judd Buchanan: In so far as the
National Research Council is concerned the reply is as follows:
1.	18.
2 and 3.
Name of house and/or contractor	Location	Value of contracts for design, installation and monitoring1.	Canadian British Consultants	Charlettotown P.E.I.	20,9302.	Penney	Halifax, N.S.	14,9393.	Murray	St. John, N.B.	13,1904.	ADI Ltd.	Fredericton, N.B.	12,6305.	Fenco Cons. Ltd.	Laval, P.Q.	19,9656.	Ives	Hudson, P.Q.	15,8657.	D.E.A.	Sherbrooke, P.Q.	10,5348.	Proctor & Redfern	Thunderbay, Ont.	22,9049.	Wardrop	Winnipeg, Man.	23,53010.	Borden	White City, Sask.	16,75011.	Nu-West	Calgary, Alta.	22,31012.	Hardy	Calgary, Alta.	12,530
March 13, 1978

Value of contracts
Name of house	for design, installation
and/or contractor	Location	and monitoring
13.	Delmarco
14.	Thompson
15.	Gananoque Solar House Gregory Allen
16.	Provident House, Envorigetics Ltd.
17.	Mississauga Solar House
18.	Aylmer Senior Citizens Apartment
Vancouver, B.C. Victoria, B.C.
Gananoque, Ont. King City, Ont. Mississauga, Ont. Aylmer, Ont.
19,830
10,513
15,516
110,690
70,492
100,000


Mr. Andre: 1.	What is the Crown's precise financial interest in Radio Engineering Products Limited as administered by the Department of National Revenue and on what date was such interest acquired, at what cost and for what reason?
2.	What was the book value of the Crown's equity on the date of acquisition and what is its latest estimated book value?
3.	To date, what is the Crown's total investment, including equity costs, contributions to operating funds, debt forgiveness and what is the Crown's total realized profit from such investment?
4.	In what manner is the Crown's interest represented (a) on the Board of Directors (b) in its senior management?
5.	Did the government make a policy decision in regard to the future disposition of its interest?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. The Crown's financial interest in Radio Engineering Products Ltd. is 1,996,350 shares of Radio Engineering Products Ltd. The shares were acquired by the Crown on July 13, 1972. No payments were made by the Crown for the acquisition of the shares. The confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act prevent disclosure of the reasons for the acquisition of the shares by the Crown.
2.	The confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act prevent disclosure of the book value of the Crown's equity on the date of acquisition and the latest estimated book value.
3.	The Department of National Revenue has made no contributions to operating funds nor has it forgiven debts as a consequence of acquiring shares of Radio Engineering Products Ltd.
4.	(a) Since the Crown's acquisition of the shares on July 13, 1972, the Crown's interest has been represented on the Board of Directors through appointment to the Board of Directors of senior officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Supply and Services and the Department of National Revenue, (b) The Crown's interest has been represented in senior management of the company through membership on the Board of Directors of representatives of the three Departments mentioned previously-
5.	Yes. Treasury Board approved voluntary bankruptcy of the company at a Treasury Board meeting November 20, 1975.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Andre: 1.	What is the Crown's precise financial interest in Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited as administered by the Department of Transport and on what date was such interest acquired, at what cost and for what reason?
2.	What was the book value of the Crown's equity on the date of acquisition and what is its latest estimated book value?
3.	To date, what is the Crown's total investment, including equity costs, contributions to operating funds, debt forgiveness and what is the Crown's total realized profit from such investment?
4.	In what manner is the Crown's interest represented (a) on the Board of Directors (b) in its senior management?
5.	Did the government make a policy decision in regard to the future disposition of its interest?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: 1. The Crown's precise financial interest is 100%. This interest was acquired on February 4, 1960, at no additional cost to the Crown (see item 2 below). Due to the cessation of shipping operations and for ease of administration and control, it was considered appropriate to transfer the company to the Federal Government.
2.	The book value of the Crown's equity at December 31, 1959, was $5,150,025 and the value at December 31, 1977, was $228,720.
3.	The Crown's total investment including equity costs since December 31, 1959, is nil. The contribution to operating funds is nil. Debt forgiveness is nil. The change in equity between 1959 and 1977 (refer 2 above) is accounted by the following: Capital Stock, $1,600,000; Surplus, 3,550,025; Total Book Value of Equity at December 31, 1959: 5,150,025. 1960 Dividend paid to Federal Government, (1,789,233); 1961 Dividend paid to Federal Government, (2,277,885); 1962 Reduction of Capital Stock (Paid to Federal Government), (1,599,024); 1960-1977 Miscellaneous Income (Net), 694,837; Total: $228,720.
4.	(a) All Directors are public servants, (b) All Officers are public servants.
5.	No policy decision has been made with respect to future disposition.
* *
*


Mr.   Wm. Andres@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 914?


Mr. McKenzie: Does Air Canada have the right to fly from Winnipeg to Chicago and return and (a) if so, on what date will the flight be inaugurated (b) if not, is it their intention to secure the right?

March 13, 1978
Aeronautics Act


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the management of Air Canada provides the following information: From April 30, 1978: (a) the airline company has not yet established a plan to operate this route but it will continue to evaluate the market concerned; (b) Air Canada acquired this right by obtaining the appropriate permits.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-4, to amend the Aeronautics Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville) moved:: That Bill C-4, on Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 9 at page 2 the following:
"(2) (a) All regulations made pursuant to this section are subject to
negative resolution of the House of Commons.
(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), where a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons, signed by not less that twenty Members of the House, is filed with the Speaker to the effect that regulations made pursuant to this section be referred to a Standing Committee of the House so that witnesses may be heard and a report may be made to the House, the House of Commons shall, within the first fifteen days next after the motion is filed that the House is sitting, in accordance with the rules of the House, take up and consider the motion, and if the motion, with or without amendments, is approved by the House such regulations shall be so referred to the Committee.
(c) Where regulations are referred to a Committee pursuant to paragraph (b) and the Committee makes a report thereon, such report shall be tabled in the House of Commons and following a debate of no longer than four hours, there shall immediately be a vote on the motion to approve the regulations with or without amendments."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to move this amendment at this time because Bill C-4, numbered Bill C-40 in the last session of this parliament, is a classic illustration of how a paternalistic government, tainted with arrogance, will use a sledgehammer approach to correct a technical deficiency in a piece of legislation and, in the process, impose some very repressive terms and conditions upon innocent victims who are very seriously implicated and affected by such changes. This piece of legislation is clearly an example of an overpowering

government flexing its bureaucratic muscle without having any regard for the people it will affect.
Just to review the history of this bill briefly, it was introduced into the House of Commons for second reading last June. At that time the minister stated that the bill was of a highly technical nature and that it was needed to deal more effectively with the safety and licensing administration as it relates to aircraft, operators of aircraft, and facilities which are licensed pursuant to the terms and conditions which are spelled out by the Ministry of Transport.
The minister went on to say that the bill was needed for the purpose of improving the method of collection of fees for services rendered by the Ministry of Transport, that the bill would provide for the imposition of interest charges on past due accounts arising therefrom, and also would provide a mechanism for the provision of a security bond, a contract or a letter of credit reference for anyone using the services and facilities of the Ministry of Transport. Quite frankly, some clauses of the bill are aimed at tightening up the collection process. Further, the bill provides for mechanisms with respect to dealing with zoning and development of land in and around airport facilities.
Because this bill is of a rather highly technical nature, ostensibly termed as a housekeeping measure, the minister sought concurrence from the House to proceed through all stages of this legislation, which would have meant that it would have passed second reading, committee stage, and third reading all within the walls of the chamber of the House of Commons. This party denied that concurrence and pointed out that the bill should be referred to the committee and witnesses called in order that there be a better understanding and thorough explanation of the legislation.
It became obvious very quickly at committee that the bill contained some very undesirable features relating to general aviation, particularly in the small aircraft sector. It soon became apparent to members of his party that major amendments would be required. In all, some eight witnesses appeared before the committee. All struck the same theme-that this bill delivered far too much monopolistic authority into the hands of the minister and the Department of Transport and that there was no provision for adequate consultation with the aviation industry. Even more important, there was no provision for appealing the imposition of any regulation that might be detrimental to the industry.
As a result of the hearings and consultation with the members of the government, it was agreed that seven amendments would be advanced, and these were accepted. The amendment we are dealing with now is one that was not accepted at committee stage but it is one about which this party feels very strongly. That is why I have taken this opportunity to introduce it to the House.
I should like now to recap some of the proceedings and review some of the deliberations on the points to which we took exception. One problem was with respect to the provision to
March 13, 1978

tighten up the collection procedure for services rendered to owners and operators of aircraft. It was discovered immediately that the major problem was collection of fees for inflight services-and landing fees and other related services-which was challenged by three foreign carriers which, for many years, have protested the principle that Canada has the right to charge for such services. These inflight service fees are known as the north Atlantic route fee, the Polar route fee, and the telecommunications fee, which are charged by Canada.
The issue is not late payment of accounts, but rather whether Canada has the right to impose such charges in the first place. What has happened is that in this bill the minister has conveniently gathered together the whole aviation industry-the giants, the commercial operators, and the small operators-and with the old sledgehammer approach has taken it upon himself to correct the problem once and for all. The question, as it relates to the three foreign air carriers and non-payment of their accounts, is currently before the Federal Court of Canada. As a matter of fact, a statement of claim was filed on August 1, 1975. The case has not been heard. What is strange is that it is not the Government of Canada that has taken the foreign air carriers to court over non-payment of fees, but the Pan American Airways Incorporated has taken the Government of Canada to court claiming the sum of $4.5 million it has paid under protest, representing charges made for en route facilities and services fees over the Atlantic, and the telecommunications fee.
Pan American, supported by other foreign carriers, contends that these charges were imposed in violation of the International Civil Aviation Association Chicago Convention; it contends that the charges are in violation of our National Transportation Act, and it contends that the charges contravene the principle of equity. The United States does not impose similar charges on Canadian air carriers while in transit over the United States and its territorial seas.
This is the scenario, Mr. Speaker. Since April, 1975, the three U.S. air carriers, namely, Pan American Airways, Trans World and Seaboard have discontinued payment of the en route facilities and services fees and telecommunication fees, and have run up a bill of $5.8 million to January 31, 1978. It is this account that has prompted the government to move with this legislation and, in so doing, to bring in the whole area of aviation rather than simply dealing with the question of the foreign air carriers. The $5.8 million which has accrued since April of 1975 is separate and apart from the $4.5 million that Pan American claims from the Government of Canada and which has been paid under protest since 1968.
In the midst of the turmoil the Department of Transport resorted to this heavy handed tactic, decreeing that all aircraft owners and operators be required to provide a security bond or satisfactory letter of credit to the minister before being allowed to use the facilities and services of the department.
The bill would provide that the Department of Transport could place a lien on such aircraft for non-payment of charges and the aircraft would be subject to seizure. Also, any account due over 60 days would be subject to interest charges.
Aeronautics Act
This was all done because of the confusion on the question of law and the non-payment and refusal to pay huge amounts of money by these three foreign air carriers. It can be classified as nothing less than gross incompetence and bungling of the highest order. The minister and his department have undertaken to lay the blame on the whole industry. It is fair to say general aviation, and particularly those who are owners and operators of light aircraft, have been subjected to this heavy handed tactic of the Ministry of Transport all too often. Even to impose this heavy handed approach on commercial air carriers is fundamentally wrong. That really is not the source of the problem.
I am not sure why the Ministry of Transport wants to take it out on the small operators. This remains a mystery to me because the small aircraft operator in general aviation is usually not the culprit. That point is clearly substantiated by information we received during consideration of this bill in committee.
A review of the accounts receivable for services and facilities which have been provided by the Ministry of Transport, as at March 31, 1977, show the total outstanding amount past due over 60 days at $6.3 million. At that time the total amount which was outstanding with the three U.S. foreign air carriers amounted to $3.6 million, leaving a balance of $2.6 million past due. Of that, Mr. Speaker, there were only 11 private aircraft operators' accounts beyond the 60-day limit. That should hardly necessitate the Ministry of Transport moving in with the sledgehammer tactic and compelling the private operators to provide satisfactory security bonds or letters of credit. I am sure that is not an alarming amount. The bureaucratic red tape which would be involved in trying to administer and police that sort of an undertaking is certainly not worth dealing with the 11 past due accounts. It is really no wonder that legislation of this nature has caused the owners and operators of small aircraft to become rather disturbed and bounce back with some relatively harsh criticism of the government of the day, the minister and the ministry in particular.
I am prompted to read into the record an editorial which appeared in the January-February edition of Canadian Flight. This article was signed by Margaret Carson, who describes herself as a former Liberal supporter. Concerning the trend in the aviation industry as administered by the current Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the current Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), she had this to say:
Our free enterprise system is going down the drain and anyone who is not in one level of government or another, or in organized labour, appears to be considered a "capitalist". General aviation and private aircraft ownership ("capitalist toys") are being discouraged by every means possible, including restrictive legislation, higher taxes, user fees, landing fees and general harassment. Recent statements attributed to government officials on private aircraft ownership include: "What gives you the right to own an airplane?", "Let's legislate hell out of them"; and "We're out to stop the business jet as long as our government-owned airline is flying over the same route with empty seats".
What happened to the "Just Society" and "Participatory Democracy" we were promised by Trudeau during his election campaign? Canada has become a socialist bureaucracy and, as an indication of Trudeau's ideals and objectives, we should not forget his widely publicised statements on a visit to Cuba:

March 13, 1978
Aeronautics Act
I will not read the next few lines as some hon. members across the way will think I am becoming partisan. These are not my words, but the words of a former Liberal supporter. 1 will skip a few lines and you can accuse me, Mr. Speaker, of quoting out of context, but I find it almost embarrassing to quote the two or three lines which are missing. Perhaps those who want to read it for themselves can find it in this particular issue of Canadian Flight dated January-February, 1978. It goes on:
When new legislation affecting aviation is proposed, the various associations are sometimes asked for comments but this now appears to be only a formality and the final result is, in most cases we suspect, predetermined. Commissions are being appointed left and right, at great expense to the taxpayer, to investigate various matters but the results of these also appear to be the same.
Dealing with the present government and its bureaucratic "civil servants" is becoming increasingly difficult and all aviation associations are experiencing the same reaction to their representations. Business and industry generally are also getting similar reactions to their representations.
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, that guest editorial summarizes the opinions and views of many who are involved in the aviation industry.
Through the efforts of the committee we have been able to make improvements to this bill. Some provisions were modified with respect to the question of providing for a security deposit, the ability to place a lien on an aircraft, and the imposition of interest. Concerning aircraft which are classified under the 12,500 pound class range these provisions were removed and their removal was naturally welcomed by the aviation industry, particularly the light aircraft owners and operators. The Air Transport Association of Canada quoted in its winter 1978 Air News that the provision still goes far beyond that which is really necessary. I quote a passage from that particular periodical:
The proposed Clause 2 amendments to the Aeronautics Act would strengthen the power of the Minister of Transport in the area of user charges. The amendments to provide for a security deposit, for liens on aircraft and to require interest on overdue charges (something the government itself doesn't pay) would enhance the monopolistic power of the Minister of Transport and prevent or inhibit sincere negotiations toward the imposition of charges that are reasonable and in the public interest.
The latter remark is a phrase which this government continues to overlook-the question of being reasonable, the imposition of charges which are reasonable and in the public interest. The article continues:
The decision in the Committee to modify the proposed requirement for a bond or letter of credit by deleting reference to aircraft under 12,500 pounds is welcomed. However, the provisions in this clause still go far beyond what is necessary for other Canadian carriers, and because the main concern voiced by the government was to strengthen the Act in order to collect transAtlantic en route charges from three U.S. carriers, it is hoped that this clause will be eliminated or further modified when it is dealt with by the House and Senate.
That summarizes the collective opinion of the Air Transport Association of Canada which is an organization of small commercial as well as the major commercial air carriers of the nation. I can describe this exercise in no other way but to call it "autocratic" and I spell the word "Ottocratic". This symbolizes the attitude of the minister, and with regret I have to say it also reflects the attitude of the Department of Transport. Therefore I believe this amendment which is before the House
at this time is important. What I have outlined here is not a new revelation, it confirms the imperious attitude of the minister and his subordinates.
We should not forget that the minister and the Ministry of Transport tried to impose, by regulation, a 530 per cent increase in user charges in 1976 without prior consultation with the industry. This was eventually altered because of the tremendous amount of opposition that was levelled by members of parliament and members of the aviation community.
We must not forget the mess the minister created when he was trying to set up the airport car rental program. Finally, it is going to be resolved in the courts. This is again as a result of a lack of effective consultation with the parties involved.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: How many times was he sued?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) asks how many times the minister has been sued. Perhaps when he speaks, he will elaborate on that. I think it has been quite often. As minister in charge of transport, he handles himself in the same way in setting an example with his user pay policy. He expects everyone to pay except himself.


Mr. Alexander:: Right.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The effect of this inadequate consultation results in regulation and legislation by edict. We also cannot forget or overlook the bureaucratic bungling that occurred in the recent past in the stipulation of the requirement of a certain type of ELT to be installed in all aircraft at a cost well in excess of $3 million. The removal of these ELT's has now been ordered because of certain defects. Is the Ministry of Transport going to come to the aid of these owners and operators who were compelled to install these ELT's? No. Who is going to pay for the mistake? The owners and operators will have to pay for this mistake, in spite of the warnings of the industry.
Here again is a classic example of lack of consultation. It is the edict from on high, the "we know best" paternalistic attitude. When dealing with the subject of user charges, we must not forget the very heavy charges placed upon the users of the air terminal facilities, these very exotic air terminal facilities such as Mirabel which will operate at a $50 million deficit this year.


An hon. Member:: What about Calgary?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Calgary is another one. It is certainly the kind of facility that does not serve the interest of the users. It serves the users of the political fortunes of the Liberal party. Here again is a lack of adequate consultation with the industry with regard to their recommendation in so far as it relates to the function and design of the facilities.
There is unilateral decree. No wonder the Air Transport Association of Canada, when it appeared before the committee

March 13, 1978

with its testimony, stated that the carriers view themselves as captive customers of a monopolistic landlord, as they have little alternative but to use the facilities designed and constructed by Transport Canada, along with services provided at prices imposed. The relations between most sections of the aviation industry and the Ministry of Transport have become so strained that the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, known as COPA, is considering suing the government, with some justification. On November 24, that organization sent a letter to the Minister of Transport. 1 quote from that letter:
We strenuously object to the proposal that private aircraft be subject to a fee representing a 450 per cent increase in the levy on aviation gasoline sold at DOT airports and what is especially upsetting is Transport Canada's suggestion that such an increase be even considered before making a thorough study of the heavy contribution which general aviation is already making to government revenues. This is akin to saying: "We don't know how much you're paying now but we're going to make sure that you pay much more."
It goes on to point out the impact and the effect of the bungling with regard to the regulation requiring the installation of ELT's which now have to be taken out. In the February 8 edition of Canadian Eastern Aviation News, there is an article headed "COPA May Sue Government". I understand they are well on their way to appointing legal counsel. In fact I believe this has been done. The March edition of Canadian Eastern Aviation News indicates that the COPA board has obtained a firm of lawyers and is very seriously considering taking the government to court over its bungling and the fact that, through its mistakes, it has placed very severe financial impositions upon the aviation industry.
Having said that, it becomes increasingly clear that there is a need for an effective mechanism and adequate appeal provision with regard to the imposition of regulations as it relates to the utilization of terminal facilities and airport user charges for owners and operators of aircraft. The Air Transport Association of Canada said that a very serious defect is now in place in the present review procedures regarding user charges. An adequate appeal provision is not available.
We have come part way in this bill by inserting an amendment which would call for a 90 day consultative period. As I said in committee, this in no way provides for an effective appeal or for the industry to be heard in a formal way. That was a very consistent theme throughout the proceedings. It was raised by every witness who appeared before that committee.
There are various kinds of consultation. If there is not a formal mechanism or structured consultation format established, the Ministry of Transport or the government simply has to ride out the objections of the industry. In the final analysis, after a period of 90 days, the regulation is imposed and becomes law. What I am saying is that there should be a further appeal provision.
Bill C-4 is, in effect, legislation by regulation. To balance the overwhelming powers and to provide a safety valve, this amendment would provide the opportunity for a specific number of members of parliament, 20 to be exact, to refer those regulations which may be seriously objectionable back to the House for a vote. I am not suggesting that all regulations
Aeronautics Act
would automatically go before a committee for a review and back to the House. I refer only to those regulations that may be found highly objectionable.
It is interesting to note that in the committee Mr. McLeish, the head of air transportation, indicated that the best forum for the aviation industry is in fact the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. If that is the best place for them to get their point across, surely it is almost imperative that, with any regulation that may be objectionable, the industry should have the right to have its say or have the opportunity to be heard before that committee. Witnesses could be called and heard, and a report submitted back to the House at which time there would be a limited debate and a vote taken.
This provision is a very fundamental part of our democratic process. We rely far too much on legislation by regulation, government orders in council, and one dollar votes. We have reached the point where we are being governed largely by government edict without ample opportunity for appeal.
We have had a proliferation of government orders in council. In 1976, 3,326 were introduced, and 653 appeared in the Canada Gazette. We have had a proliferation of commissions, task forces, boards and study groups, all making decisions. We have decision making bodies all over the place. However, the decision making body is supposed to be this institution. I am trying, through this amendment, to get some of that decision making power back into the House where it rightfully belongs, in the hands of the elected representatives. In that way it gets the power back to the people, and that is where it belongs.
I have introduced this amendment because I believe it constitutes a necessary check over the excessive unilateral authority which has been exerted all too often by a government which is overly domineering, a government which has penetrated deeper and deeper into our lives every day, in a repressive fashion such as we have not experienced in the last 110 years. This, to my mind, is not democracy; it is government by bureaucratic rule, and it must be brought into line. It must be checked.
As for the aviation community, it will be a long time, given the experience it has had with this administration, before its members forget the high-handed approach the government has taken against them in dealing with their affairs. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the government has waged an out and out war against general aviation over the last five years. I really hope hon. members on the other side are listening keenly to this. I know the parliamentary secretary is doing so. I have a great deal of admiration for him. He has worked very hard to make this a better bill, and I respect him for that. He certainly has the ear of the industry to a much more positive extent than has the minister. But it seems to me that if the government does not want to accept my amendment we must expect a continuance of the war against general aviation, as in the past.
Acceptance of the amendment would at least constitute a gesture on the part of the government that it intends to sicken

March 13, 1978
Aeronautics Act
off somewhat its campaign against aviation. I ask the government to consider my proposal seriously in the name of the democratic process and of providing the checks and balances needed to govern effectively in the interest of general aviation.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski), and in particular to urge the House to consider carefully the excellent speech he has made in support of his amendment. It is one which I myself support very enthusiastically. It seems to me that parliamentarians ought to be more concerned about some of the initiatives we can take in this chamber to keep a tether, as it were, on some of the departmental officials who, in some cases, I think it is clear, would like to carry a sceptre and wear a crown if only the House of Commons were to give them sufficient latitude to enable them to do so.
I believe it became obvious throughout the committee hearings, both this session and last session after hearing the witnesses who appeared, that there was not sufficient consultation with those who are most directly concerned with the effects of this bill and that there was insufficient realization of the practical problems it would create for the industry. The Canadian Owners and Pilots Association representing approximately 11,000 operators in Canada complained three times in the committee about the lack of consultation. Furthermore, once the bureaucrats have drafted a bill, they are not disposed to change their minds about it. This opinion was stated on July 11 last year.
It has become an article of faith among high civil servants that if they can implement regulations to frustrate the obvious intent of parliament, they will do so. In this connection, I recall a memorable speech by the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) in which he set out some of the very unjust things which had been done to orphan children who had been denied, by bureaucratic regulation, the benefits which this chamber intended they should enjoy. There are many other examples which could be brought to light with a little research.
A spokesman for COPA stated on July 11, 1977:
We had no advance notice of this bill and certainly no consultation on it. We do not understand why, and we think we should have been advised well ahead of time so that we might have been able to be helpful in the construction of it, because once the bill is drafted and read then it is case-hardened. Somebody, whether it is the minister or the guy who wrote it, or maybe a lot of people, including the government, feels called upon to defend it. And even though they might hear evidence at meetings such as this, which point up discrepancies in it, or problems with it, and so on they find themselves impelled to defend it because they were the ones who wrote it in the first place and they do not want to admit that they goofed.
Unfortunately, that is the truth. It is becoming increasingly evident that this chamber is losing authority every day relative to the ministers and the attempts of some of the bureaucrats, who mean well but who, like the government at times, are seized with an "edifice" complex-and we have seen some of the edifices they are pushing on the Canadian people.
For instance, for some time now the ministry has been occupied with the concept of cabin safety inspection, and no

doubt in future we shall see the installation of yet another layer of inspectors in our aircraft in the absence of consultation with, or support from, the industry itself. In addition to the flight attendants telling us to place our briefcases in the precise spot designated by the ministry, we shall see some other official, full of self importance, giving the benefit of his superior knowledge on the question of precisely how a briefcase should be secured, and all at the expense of the taxpayer. And, no doubt, the air industry will be still further harassed and compelled to fix up the resulting public relations problems with the travelling public simply because somebody or other thought they should foist their grandiose ideas of what should be done, upon the travelling public.
As things are, members of parliament have little or nothing to say about these things and that is why it seems to me the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville is so deserving of support. As I say, it allows the House of Commons to keep a tether on the bureaucrats. In somewhat the same way as under the AIB legislation, action can be taken if members feel that regulations are unnecessarily regressive or impractical in their effect upon aviation. This is surely something which hon. members, regardless of political affiliation, ought to welcome. I am sure they would welcome some way for this chamber to keep, in a general way, the power to oversee and check, if necessary, a particularly inappropriate piece of regulatory work by some civil servant.
To indicate further the lack of respect the government, through this minister, traditionally has for that kind of consultation with industry, it is a matter of record that on June 13 last year the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) tried, with unanimous consent, to make this whole series of committee hearings superfluous. He asked at that time:
-if hon. members would be willing to change the second reading motion, to provide for the bill to be referred to committee of the whole, so that it may proceed through all stages.
What did a former deputy minister of transport and later president of Air Canada think about this? It is very interesting that Mr. John R. Baldwin, who presented a paper to a senior staff seminar of the Canadian Transport Commission, said as follows:
Most important, a difficult psychological change in the attitude of government officials responsible for providing facilities must take place. If it is future government intent to recover all or a major portion of facility costs, then the user who pays requires a larger voice in the decision as to what is provided.
He went on to state there has always been consultation with users, but government has taken a paternalistic attitude, retaining the right of final decisions as to what it will provide and at what costs, and often enough deciding against the views of users. Mirabel is a good example. Certainly there was consultation and some user views were accepted. However, the Mirabel terminal concept was what federal planners wanted, not the users. Similar problems obviously exist in Calgary.
My point is that even though in the course of time the government planners may prove to have been wise, if the user is to pay all or the major part of the costs, his views should be

paramount, and he has the prime right to decide, even if he is wrong. A major change in attitude is necessary to achieve this result.
It is pretty obvious this amendment that has been advanced by my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville, will do quite a bit in practical and psychological terms to restrain some of these people, like Mr. McLeish, who no doubt feel they in their wisdom are the ones to pronounce in absolute terms what is best for the Canadian aviation industry. There is no doubt in the world that these people are well qualified, and in some instances no doubt they are right. However, in a democracy such as ours it is very alarming to see the trend being established more and more so that this place legislates, but the real muscle and the real practical effects of what is done do not emanate from the legislation itself but from the regulations the Public Service decides to bring in from time to time.
If there is no opportunity for the industry of the people affected and, indeed, for members of parliament, to have some sort of check or balance on these regulations which are becoming more and more repressive and numerous, then it becomes almost anti-climactic for us to worry too much about the principles involved in aviation or anything else.
I was interested in what the hon. member for Vegreville said about the opportunity to obtain information, and he quoted Mr. McLeish at the committee. I am very pleased that Mr. McLeish, the administrator of the Canadian air transport administration, feels that way toward the committee. I asked him two questions. The first question was about the results of his department's decision to test the DC-10 in California last September which, according to reliable reports, damaged this aircraft which belonged to Air New Zealand to the extent of $500,000, causing all sorts of complications and expenditures. I do not know how many lawsuits might originate from this experiment or who ultimately will have to pay the cost. When I attempted to get some information from him about this 1 was unable to do so.
I also asked him one other simple question about his attitude toward constant pilot monitoring and whether there had been any meaningful consultation with the Canadian Airlines Pilots' Association, and what sort of concept he had in mind. I was not able to get any information. The first question occupied Mr. McLeish's attention to the point that he seemed to get very upset that the matter was brought up at all, and he never did get around to answering the second one about constant pilot monitoring.
It seems to me, without belabouring the point and without repeating some of the things that were so ably put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville, this amendment will allow us to have the best of all possible worlds in so far as parliament is concerned. It will remove the absolute authority, the crown and sceptre complex, if I may use that phrase, which tends to permeate some of the upper echelons, particularly of the department involved. It will enable this place, by the participation of 20 members, to give vent to the wishes, the fears or whatever of the industry or the public, by giving us a tether or
Aeronautics Act
a rein on some of these regulations which otherwise would be passed with absolute impunity.
Through you, sir, I would urge all members of the House to give careful consideration to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville on behalf of our party. It is the type of measure that, in a real way, can further the spirit of co-operation among members of parliament of all parties in a way which existed, for example, in respect of the subcommittee of that special joint committee on penitentiary services. It will allow us, as members of parliament, irrespective of our political party feelings, to join together and advance the position and the authority of the House of Commons, which ultimately is the only forum and institution that ought to be responsible for measures affecting large numbers of the travelling public, or key sectors of our industry.


Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief regarding this amendment moved by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). On many occasions when bills are put before this House they are dragged out by the opposition, and 1 do not want to follow that example.
I assume that the thought behind this amendment was that it would obviously involve something that would be good for the industry. One of my main concerns is with the fact that any bills the government brings forward are all or partially wrong in so far as the opposition is concerned. The opposition goes on year after year complaining, never putting up anything constructive, just trying to tear down legislation that is good not only for the individual but for the whole country. I do not suggest that every bill this government puts before the House is perfect, but I am certain that the criticism of the opposition is also less than perfect.
One thing opposition members should remember is that when bills are presented to this House there is an opportunity available to all hon. members to contact the people who are concerned. One thing I have learned on this side from some of the more senior members, and I was taught this when I first came down in 1974, is that when bills are presented you should make sure you get a copy to the people involved and get their comments. It is quite obvious to me that it is in this respect members of the opposition are lacking. I know for a fact that when this bill was originally presented I contacted people in Ontario, including the Ontario Flying Farmers and other groups. I gave them an opportunity to speak and react before the bill went to the committee.
During my last three and a half years I have tried to make sure that all people, if they are to be affected by a bill, have an opportunity to speak. I found it to be very successful. In the last three and a half years, whenever I have voiced opposition to a bill, it has been long before members of the opposition have brought their points to the attention not only of the minister concerned but of my colleagues on the back benches and my colleagues in the cabinet. 1 have been able to present to them some of the problems and sometimes the lack of knowledge about the legislation of the people whom the bills

March 13, 1978
Aeronautics Act
propose to help. Obviously this is a problem that crops up from time to time.
I am not too critical of the media, but sometimes you read in the local newspaper, or even a national newspaper, a headline condemning some bill that has been presented in the House. When you read the article and then you look at the bill, you find there is quite a difference between what is said in the newspaper and what the government proposes to do in the bill. I am sure hon. members opposite realize that, when bills are presented, they are not picked out of the hat for somebody's convenience. Bills are presented to help people who are affected in certain areas, such as transport, health and welfare, or any other area under federal government jurisdiction, and to make sure these people know exactly what the problems are so that the government can help them. If this is not what the government is supposed to be doing, then I am afraid both sides of the House are redundant. For the last three and a half years the government has endeavoured to ensure that the people have been heard and that they are helped through legislation.
I was quite surprised when one of the opposition members- I think it was the hon. member for Vegreville-mentioned something about the AIB and said that people have nobody to whom to protest. 1 can assure him that members on this side whose constituents have had problems with AIB have been helped by this side, although people in the outside world might think that backbenchers are just fellows who stand up at the end of a string at vote time. Some people think that, but I think my colleagues around me realize that the work we do for our constituents and the people of Canada consists sometimes in needling the cabinet by bringing to their attention problems in different constituencies when these bills are presented.
I have marked down something that was said by the hon. member for Vegreville and, if I am incorrect, I hope he will correct me. He said that landing fees seem to be imposed on people with smaller aircraft. If he checked the record of the committee meetings, the hon. member would see that when the minister proposed the legislation, landing fees were proposed, not imposed. What is the minister doing? He is laying down a bill before the House for comment, not only from members on this side or in the opposition but from people all over Canada who would be affected by the bill. Is this not what democracy is all about? We lay down a bill before the House, we give an opportunity to debate it and for amendments to be proposed to improve the bill so as to help the people better in areas where such help is needed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member invited me to correct him if he was wrong, and certainly I want to take that opportunity because it is pointed out very clearly in the bill that the charges are imposed rather than proposed.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: I think the hon. member for Vegreville misunderstood me. The connotation he put on it was that the

government was imposing this bill upon the people. I think hon. members will recognize that when a bill is put before the House, it is proposed rather than imposed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That was shifty. It is called reversing gears.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: Mr. Speaker, I am affected when I hear criticism from the other side and I appreciate it.
In closing I should like to say, as one hon. member said, that this bill is not a sexy bill which will get headlines, a bill which will receive much media coverage. The bill has been proposed to help the industry, to help it regulate itself through participation with the people who will be affected.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appeile-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this might seem like a very minor bill for the prestigious House of Commons to be considering, but the amendment proposed to it has changed that. The amendment has put before the House the salient question: does this House have any guts left? The amendment simply asks that in matters concerning the safety of aircraft, as proposed in the amendments to the Aeronautics Act, the House have the power to check the regulations. To make absolutely certain that no member of the House and, I hope, no person who travels on an aircraft or on any helicopter in Canada misunderstands the situation, I will put it in terms that everyone can understand.
I suggest that hon. members look at the amendment to clause 3 on page 2, which I will read slowly, following which I will deliver my remarks on it loud and clear. The clause reads:
3. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 5.1 thereof, the following section:
"5.2 For the protection of passengers, property and persons on the ground the Governor in Council may make regulations requiring the owners and operators of privately registered aircraft to subscribe for and carry liability insurance, and Fixing the minimum amount of such insurance".
On reading that clause probably everyone feels reassured that parliament is giving to cabinet the power to make regulations, if it wishes, to protect passengers-is it not wonderful because we might be flying in an aircraft some day-property and persons on the ground. That is what it sounds like, but what is the reality? Throwing away the rights of parliament in that type of hypocritical amendment is nothing else but hypocrisy of the highest order, window dressing. Let me give you an example in plain terms.
Everyone of us flies on Air Canada, CPA, Transair, Okanagan Helicopters or any type of aircraft which carry more than the number of pounds mentioned in the legislation. We should read the small print in the bills. If we did, we would find that whenever we travel by Air Canada or CPA, we are insured, whether we know it or not, for $75,000. That has been there in similar type of legislation for years and those airlines are not exempt, but name me one person in all these years that the legislation has been there, put on by so called responsible parliamentarians, that a single person has ever received that insurance. That is what I mean by hypocrisy. Surely after all these years of tragic air crashes across this country, all these years of mothers and children waiting for something that never
March 13, 1978

comes-insurance is supposed to be guaranteed as implied in the legislation-some money should have been paid out.
Because we are parliamentarians, we think we are doing a job when we sit here and let government backbenchers, like the hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon), say that the government consults everybody. With whom is the government consulting-morons? Anyone who knows what is going on in this field in this country should be ashamed of himself to see legislation like this going through the Elouse. All this amendment asks is that parliament have some of the power it used to have with regard to air safety, that the regulations put through by the governor in council which are drafted by civil servants are examined by us and that they be put into plain language which even lawyers could not muck up.
What is being done here? Parliament thinks it is passing, in the example I am using, power to the cabinet to make regulations to see to it that people who fly in aircraft are protected, but in fact they are not protected. A passenger is happy when he realizes that there will be insurance in the event of his death and that his family will be independent for life. However, when his estate goes to the insurance company to collect $75,000 or $40,000-whatever the minimum regulations call for-the insurance company says, as insurance companies do year after year, that it will be glad to pay if the estate can prove who caused the accident. How in God's name, when there were 300 passengers on an aircraft and you were sitting in the last seat-and when you are dead-can you prove how the accident happened? Even if you are a survivor, you cannot prove that.
When insurance companies ask for that proof, they are just grinning because they realize that there are a bunch of stupid people in the civil service and in parliament who allow this type of legislation to pass unchanged. This is the type of crap that destroys the credibility of parliament. This is the type of hypocrisy which make us all ashamed when we know about it. All we are asking is that this parliament be allowed to look at the facts. I challenge anyone to name me one person who has ever received this insurance. The insurance companies are ripping off the owners of aircraft who are compelled by this legislation to buy insurance. The insurance companies look at the regulations put through by civil servants, and never pay.
I want to be very specific. Everyone remembers the crash at Toronto several years ago. 1 challenge anyone to name one family of any of those 100 passengers who died that night which has received any insurance. Yet under the regulations passed by the governor in council with the authority of parliament, there had to be insurance.
This is not a matter of an academic discussion of a fine point of law. What we are discussing here is the stupidity of parliamentarians who sit back and say that because they are on the government side they will surrender their souls to the civil service mandarins and put through whatever they ask.
The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is proposing that since the civil service has failed to write regula-
Aeronautics Act
tions which are clear enough to demand what parliament wants to be done and since the governor in council is so busy and tired that there is not enough time to do this properly, we should bring it to parliament, and parliament should do the extra work to make sure that if we are going to be held responsible for the legislation, we should see the regulations which are being put out under this legislation. This deals with the safety of those who travel by air. Let us remember where the fault lies. It lies right here in parliament where we have said that we are so busy we have no time to deal with regulations or orders in council. Here we have an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vegreville which says that we will take time when the safety of the travelling public is concerned. I think we should pass this amendment so that we can have some of our credibility restored.
Let us get rid of some of the awful shame which hangs over us all by saying that in this field we will take time and see to it that the regulations are examined by the representatives of the people and not by the paid incompetents who write these regulations and who, I confess, are mostly lawyers who should not be in the job.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Is this a party vote?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The solution is very simple. Let us put this amendment through. This amendment would give us the power to overrule regulations. Then the civil servant who drafts the regulations and takes them to the governor in council to have them approved will notice what has been said here and will make certain that the regulations are put into clear English which does not allow insurance companies to continue this rip-off.
The insurance companies rip off the owners of Air Canada, Canadian Pacific, Okanagan Helicopters and anyone else who rents out an aircraft which weighs more than the prescribed weight. However, the families of those who die are the real victims of the rip-off. If we want solutions, let us put this through. I suggest that the regulations be put into plain terms such as "It is the desire of parliament that passengers shall be protected" and none of this "may" stuff.
The regulations should require that insurance be paid the minute there is proof of death or injury, and let the insurance companies use the dollars they collect in premiums to find out who is responsible. Let them try to collect their money from the negligent party.
Let us go back to that Toronto Air Canada crash. Obviously the facts show that either the Ministry of Transport, the employees of Air Canada, or both, were responsible for that awful crash. It was not the fault of any passenger. Why, then, should the families of over 100 passengers, innocent of any fault, have to wait all these years for the long and dragged out procedure in two courts? They have to go after Air Canada in one court and the Ministry of Transport in another. One is a Crown department; the other is just an agency of the Crown. This means that the poor fellow who is taking action to find out who is to blame in order to collect his legitimate liability insurance has to have enough money to get actions started in

March 13, 1978
Aeronautics Act
two courts simultaneously. The minimum fee to get started in either of those courts is about $50,000. Over four years it mounts up and mounts up, even if "Rockefeller" is his name.
I speak with obvious feeling when I say that we condemn ourselves by letting this type of slipshod clause get through. Knowing the facts as they have been for the last ten or 20 years, why should we repeat it all over again? I suggest that none of us would be hurt very much by amending this legislation in order to let us examine the regulations to see if we understand them. I am very sure that parliamentarians of all parties would make sure that if we say that insurance protection should be provided to passengers who fly on our aircraft, somebody will pay if there is an accident. However, the present situation in which families of deceased are asked to prove negligence, should not be allowed to continue.
I was talking about an accident which occurred right in the middle of a crowded area, Toronto. What about other accidents all over the country, and accidents in remote places where no one even knows they happen? There is hardly ever any chance of proving which party is negligent. In the case of the recent crash at Cranbrook, they are rushing to find out who was negligent. Before that is resolved there will be a lengthy legal case. The families of the people who died will wait for their insurance for years, and it may never come because the case will never be completely resolved. Indeed, most of the families will not know there was insurance because that fact is not advertised. There is plenty of advertising if the company is supporting the Hamilton Tiger Cats or something like that, but we do not advertise to tell people that insurance is available through order-in-council. It is kept a deep secret. In the event that someone should find out about it, however, it is not likely they will receive anything.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we should accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vegreville, which reads in part as follows:
All regulations made pursuant to this section are subject to negative resolution of the House of Commons.
That is very simple, Mr. Speaker. I do not want, any more than anyone else, to overload this House with details of management and administration, but on no subject have we greater reason to ask to take back some of the power turned over to the governor in council, than on this one. They have failed to do their duty through ignorance and maybe through fatigue.
It is not only in the field of air safety that troubles arise, Mr. Speaker. Many members here have heard me speak on the subject I am about to touch upon. I have felt very sorry for ministers of finance in this parliament. Since the days of Walter Harris I have seen them destroyed, one after the other, because they did not know enough about what was wrong with the economic theories that civil servants were following, to change them. And even if they did know, they were not able to change them.

We saw good men knocked down-colleagues of ours, people who were liked-because rightly or wrongly the mandarins in the Department of Finance told them, "This is the way, and this is what you will do." The way has been proven, quantitatively, to be wrong. I have seen these ministers destroyed as human beings through not knowing enough to cope with the charm and persuasion of mandarins who want to cling to power even though they are following the wrong economic road.
Perhaps that is understandable with the involved subject of finance. Safety of air passengers is a subject we all understand, however. People who do not want to think about safety should not fly. On this simple matter that we do understand, we as parliamentarians should make it clear to Canadians that we intend to take this power back and take full responsibility for seeing that regulations are drafted to ensure that what we want will be accomplished. The present regulations regarding the liability insurance that I have used as an example, are not being applied as parliament must have wished when the leglis-lation was passed.
It is not just the question of safety that concerns me, Mr. Speaker. Just a few moments ago a minister of the Crown left the chamber. When he was minister of national health and welfare he was very proud of the fact that he introduced legislation which was passed by all parties in this House calling for a family allowance of $20 per month for every child, regardless of the means of the parent. But when the regulations were published, they did not carry out this promise of parliament. The regulations provided that all children, regardless of the wealth of their parents, should receive $20 per month-except if a child had lost both parents. Apparently, according to the mandarins in the Department of National Health and Welfare, an orphan is no longer a child but is an adult. Under the regulations passed by governor in council this parliament must sit quietly by whilst every orphaned child in this country is barred from receiving the family allowance that we voted.
I took this matter up with the then minister, and I think he was just as shocked as I was. The senior civil servant concerned with this told us, however, that the regulations could not be changed and that if an orphan, whether three years of age, or seven years of age, was paid $20 per month, it would destroy the tax balance of the budget. He maintained it would hurt the country financially by disturbing the balance of ways and means. In parliament we thought we were voting $20 per month for every child under 16 years of age without regard to wealth, but the civil servants decided that orphans were to be excluded. A child who loses one parent would still receive $20 per month, but a child who loses both parents would lose everything, by regulation. And parliament had nothing to say in the matter. When the minister had this brought to his attention-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
March 13, 1978


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I have just a sentence or two left. I raised the matter of the family allowance because it is understandable. We all know what an orphan is. In parliament we thought we had done something worth while to help families have children by paying an allowance of $20 per month. We find, however, that by regulations passed without the knowledge of parliament-not brought back to parliament but passed by the governor in council-this is not the case. When we protest, as parliamentarians, we are simply told that the civil service knows what is right and what is wrong.
The question of public safety on aircraft is not that much more difficult to understand. We know that we are not likely to survive the crash of one of these fast aircraft. The chances of any crash being fatal are very high. I think we owe it to everyone who flies in an aircraft in Canada to ensure that if we say, as parliamentarians, that they should be insured, then the family that is supposed to be protected by that insurance receives that protection. I think parliamentarians are smart enough to do that. We may not be able to come up with the latest theories in finance, but in matters such as I have referred to with practical examples, we should be able to ensure protection for our citizens.
I think I have made a solid case for supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Vegreville that on the question of air safety we should give parliament the right to approve or disapprove regulations, and not leave it to the governor in council alone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, you will notice that I hesitated for a moment before commencing the few words I am going to deliver. After that powerful and moving speech by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) I thought the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lapointe) would have gone outside to communicate with his minister and then come back to indicate his willingness to accept this reasonable and sensible amendment.
I am looking hard at the parliamentary secretary, and I do not see him nod, so I have to assume he has not been able to get consent. If he had, it would have saved this House a lot of time and we could have dealt with more pressing matters, such as the economy. Unfortunately, no matter where the heart of the parliamentary secretary may be, he is in the position of having to do what he is told. I am sorry hon. members are in a position where they are compelled to occupy positions of parliamentary secretaries. I am sure they would be much happier over on this side conducting the kind of spirited defence for the rights of the public which the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, and the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) have carried out. If the hon. parliamentary secretary is fortunate enough to come back to the House after
Aeronautics Act
the next election, he will have the useful experience of sitting on this side and trying to repair some of the damage he has helped cause.
The hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon) spoke about whether situations are proposed or imposed. It is an issue which concerns us all. For example, are estimates and spending proposals imposed or proposed? What about orders in council or regulations of this kind? Are they proposed or imposed? I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and ask, what about penal institutions? Are they imposed or proposed?
I am sure the hon. member will be able to answer that question. Who will know whether penal institutions are proposed or imposed upon hon. members and upon their constituencies?
We now come to the question of regulations. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and I fought this battle many times. I believe we started off with the Aeronautics Act and the original transportation act which included references to aeronautics. At that time the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), who had not that time been elevated to his present position, was sitting on this side of the House in a greater degree of respectability than he now has. He joined with us at that time in opposing with vigor the legislative proposals of the government, of which he has since become a member. He objected to regulations in the transportation act, to regulations in the act dealing with farm legislation and marketing. He was a tiger when it came to opposing proposals which gave to the government, to the ministers, to the governor in council acting on the advice of their advisers and officials, the power to act, just as this particular legislation will give to the officials of the Department of Transport. The hon. member for Crowfoot is now actively engaged in enforcing regulations of a kind which he once opposed. That will be very interesting reading at some time.
On this side of the House we are concerned. Personally I have been concerned for a long time. We have passed bill after bill in this House, vesting in the government, in the governor in council, in a minister, in an agency, the power act by regulation and order in council. My hon. friend from Vegreville referred to the fact that there were well over 3,000 passed during the past year. It is true that there is some opportunity to examine those through the medium of the statutory instruments committee. Our examinations are only conducted as to form. We do not go into the merits, or into the policy which lies behind the promulgation, the enactment of these orders in council. We have examined a great many of them and we have put in some reports.
In the second report of that committee dealing with orders in council we placed a very reasoned argument, buttressed by facts and by law. I am glad to see the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) here. The Post Office was in breach of law in trying to secure increases in postal rates by order in council. We supported that argument by references to decisions of the courts, by references to people who were supposed to be

March 13, 1978
Aeronautics Act
experts in connection with the business of enacting orders in council. This was the second report of the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments which was unanimously approved, supported by members from the other House.
That report was brought in, left in this House and never objected to by the government. Here we find the government now in complete disregard for a report of a very powerful and effective committee of this House saying that it intends to pay no attention to it. The government is going to keep on increasing postal rates by regulation and order in council despite the fact that the law, the facts, common sense and equity all say no. This is why my hon. friend from Vegreville and other members from this side of the House and I hope that some members on the other side will rise to the occasion with a display of intestinal fortitude which may be alien to their political faith to say, "So far as we are concerned we agree with the hon. member for Vegreville and we will not stand idly by and see vested in the government this sort of power."
I have looked at most of the statutes on the order paper. As I sat here listening to the speeches made I went through the order paper which contains, in the Orders of the Day, a list of the government bills. 1 would venture to say that two out of every three bills contain vast enabling powers which the government is asking this House to give to a minister, to the governor in council or to an agency. All members and all practical people know that in the kind of world we live in it is not possible for this House to deal in detail with every possible contingency which might arise by which it is necessary for the government and/or its officials to deal with areas covered or encompassed by legislation. We all understand and accept that it is necessary to deal with some of those difficult situations by the media of orders in council and regulations. All we ask, and I think it is a very reasonable request, is that it be vested in this House and when we give this power away we retain some form of liaison, in order that we can call the matter back if we have to do that.
I have spoken to the hon. member for Vegreville on this matter. We have no intention of engaging in, and no sensible or responsible opposition party or member would for one moment contemplate, a wholesale practice of calling back for discussion in this House, through the means of the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Vegreville, every issue and item covered by an order in council. There must be some protection. As my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain has said, we are in a better position than all the highly paid civil servants in this country. I am not disparaging them when I say that.
Through the daily and weekly contacts we have with our constituents and the public of Canada we are in a better position to realize what may be the impact of an order in council drafted somewhere in one of the ivory tower complexes with which this city is infested. These public servants do not have the slightest idea. They may be only 2,000 miles away from St. John's or 3,000 miles away from Peace River. In

terms of knowledge of what goes on they are thousands of light years away.


James Aloysius McGrath: Another galaxy.


Gerald William Baldwin: Canada has many nostrums for the settlement of its problems. They have been put in place. God knows we are saddled with them for some time. I have great respect for most public servants, but many of them who will rise to the top positions have an affinity with ministers who sit in cabinet. They understand them because, unfortunately for the country, they have the same kind of mentality.
It is not good enough just to give this power to the government. I would like ministers here to answer honestly in how much detail they study the list of orders in council which come before them. To what extent are those orders in council supported by documents and papers which will show their effect? I believe it is very little. This situation will be remedied when we switch sides after the election.
That is the problem we face. It is what the hon. member for Vegreville is asking. Surely it is not too much to ask for support from the government people so that when an order in council is relevant and important and may have an unexpected or unusual practice, it will come before this House of Commons for discussion. The very fact that the power exists will, in my judgment, impose upon public servants a greater measure of care, caution, and scrutiny of the proposals they make. When regulations finally are enacted, they will be of a higher quality, having been drafted with one eye to the possibility of them being brought into this House.
I practised law for many years. I say to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, who has now left the Chamber, that my 20 years' experience in the House of Commons will probably purge me of all my sins as a lawyer. I say that as a result of a comment he made.
Throughout that period of practising law, I only had occasion three times to use the application for a writ of habeas corpus. However, the fact that that right exists, brought down to us over hundreds of years' experience under the parliamentary system of government, is a most salutary and useful restraint on government improperly taking custody of people in an illegal way without going through the law. I know the War Measures Act is a variation of that. It took a special kind of government and a special kind of Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to invoke the War Measures Act.


Roméo LeBlanc: With the opposition supporting it.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is a different story. When it is written, we will have more to say about that.
Some members opposite say that with our political process, why worry about bringing into the House of Commons for debate and discussion orders in council, as suggested by the hon. member for Vegreville? With an election every four
March 13, 1978

years, the people can decide through the political process what will happen. I will suggest to hon. members what happens.
We are now going into an election. This party will be making very strong representations, as will my friends to my left, in a different vein, on the questions of the economy, inflation, unemployment and the sagging dollar. On the other hand, the government, in an unfortunate predicament because of these same issues, will have only one political argument. They are going to send out their rather shop-worn figure of a leader. They sent him to the cleaners to be de-spotted. They will run him up the masthead and say, "This is our policy". They may get in that way. If they do, it will be the greatest con job since Barnum and Bailey introduced the bearded lady into show business. In an election of that kind, there is no opportunity for intelligent and rational debate on the issues.
The hon. member for Vegreville has given illustrations where the government has acted most improperly and abruptly with regard to some regulations dealing with aircraft, the costs to be paid in connection with those aircraft, and the impact that will make in an election if the events occurred two or three years previously. It simply is not good enough. We must have a day-to-day, month-to-month, year-to-year analysis and study of what goes on under the guise of these regulations in order to protect the people of this land.
I close on another high note. I have before me a copy of today's Ottawa Citizen which contains an article entitled "Bureaucracy, Waste 'Sickened' Former PS". 1 quote from the article:
A former official of the federal Treasury Board said Saturday he was "heartsick" at the government waste he witnessed during his years in the job.
Douglas Hartle, a former deputy-secretary of Treasury Board, told a workshop at the Ontario Liberal party's annual meeting that he saw "too many public servants chasing not enough work, some of them grossly over-paid." ... When times were good in the early 1970's, Hartle said the government always had more money at its disposal than it knew what to do with.
I am sure the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) will be most interested in that comment bearing in mind the situation which prevails in his constituency, a situation which developed because there were not adequate funds, when there should have been, to deal with those issues. The article continues:
"Treasury Board deals mainly with Mickey Mouse matters," he said. "When all is said and done, the bureaucrat is eventually told to shut up. I'd had my say and the minister would decide."
That is the situation which prevails. We all know it exists. We have been here long enough. All the hon. member for Vegreville is asking in his very simple and reasonable amendment is that there be left in this House the ultimate right to have considered, when justified, an order in council which goes to the root of the problem dealt with in this act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie).


A. Daniel McKenzie: May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
Fisheries



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 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 York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-The Canadian economy-Value of Canadian dollar-International investment in Canada; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Transport-Government action to reduce airline disasters; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco)-Environmental Affairs-Akamina-Kishinena, B.C.-Protection of wildlife.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 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, notices of motions, public bills. I understand there is unanimous consent to stand motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) and motion No. 11 in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is so ordered. We will now proceed to motion No. 19.


GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION ACT
James Aloysius McGrath: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of bringing in legislation to amend the Government Organization Act providing for a separate Department of Fisheries.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the third time this resolution has been brought before the House. It is and has been as a result of the government re-organization of 1971 when the Department of Fisheries, as it then was, was merged with a number of government agencies. The Environmental Protection agency, the Canadian Wildlife agency and the Meteorological agency are three that come to mind. They were merged to form the new Department of the Environment.
As a result of our opposition to the bill and as a result of some reasonable heads prevailing, there was agreement at the time and the minister became known as the Minister of

March 13, 1978
Fisheries
Fisheries and the Environment. This was at a crucial time in our negotiations with other countries in connection with the Law of the Sea and it ensured that one of the major fishing nations of the world would continue to have a minister of fisheries. However, the department became the Department of the Environment, and the Department of Fisheries became merely the fisheries service of the Department of the Environment. In my opinion that has never been a very satisfactory arrangement, and events have shown that this view is well founded.
All we need do is examine, for example, the budget of the Department of the Environment to find that 50 per cent or more of the department in terms of personnel and budget is made up of fisheries services. This is not to suggest for a moment that environmental questions are not important. Indeed they are, and they should receive the priority they deserve. Today, of course, we have a minister responsible for the environment, a minister of state, who answers to the Minister of the Environment who is now the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc). That is the way we get around the legality of the arrangement because, until the government brings in an amendment to the Government Organization Act, we shall continue this very unsatisfactory arrangement.
To put the matter in historical perspective, this all started back in 1971. Even the Liberal party was never very happy about what was done. The Liberal convention of 1973 passed a resolution as follows:
In view of the immense importance of the fishing industry to Canada, particularly to the coastal provinces, that there be established immediately a department to take charge of this area to be known as the Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources.
That resolution was adopted by the Liberal convention of
1973.	It followed a similar resolution adopted by Conservative candidates from the Atlantic provinces in 1972 and again in
1974.	I might add that Liberal candidates in the Atlantic provinces at a meeting in 1974 adopted a similar resolution.
The only action to flow from all this was a move by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1974 to give us half of what he had promised by appointing a Minister of State for Fisheries. That office was filled by the present Minister of the Environment. The Minister of State for Fisheries had to operate within and under the authority of the Minister of the Environment. All this was happening, unfortunately, at a most critical time in the history of Canada, at a time when the Law of the Sea situation was coming to a head; a consensus was developing that ocean states had the right and the responsibility to manage their offshore resources. As a result of this emerging consensus the 200-mile limit was unilaterally imposed by the government and took effect in January, 1977.
Again, in the fall of last year, the Prime Minister promised, and I quote, "We shall separate the two departments as soon as we have the legislation passed." That was in September of 1977. Now we are at the end of the present session and of this present parliament. It is obvious to me that, notwithstanding the promise made by the Prime Minister in 1977 and during the election campaign of 1974, and the resolution of the

Liberal party in 1973 and again in 1974, repeated at the last convention a few months ago, the government has not seen fit, because it does not consider this to be a matter of priority, to bring legislation before the House amending the Government Organization Act, to redress this serious anomaly by once again creating a fully-fledged Department of Fisheries.
Thus, we shall have to continue during this parliament and beyond the next election and well into the next parliament before obtaining legislative sanction for what is the de facto situation-in my opinion a most unsatisfactory one. It is unsatisfactory because, on the verge of the most exciting time in the history of the fishing industry in Canada, we are beginning to realize, as a result of the action we took a year ago, the tremendous potential for expansion there is in the industry for the benefit of the nation as a whole and particularly of the Atlantic provinces. In the past year, for the first time in our history, the market value of the product exceeded SI billion-it is now $1.2 billion. This makes the industry a very important one, one which merits a fully-fledged department with the undivided attention of a fully-fledged minister.
There is an even more important point which should be made. The Department of Fisheries, unlike any other department in the government, is directly responsible for the lives of thousands of people engaged in the industry. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is in the nearest comparable situation but he has nothing like the responsibility for the lives of human beings as is found within the Department of Fisheries in respect of our fishermen and the ancient industry which they so bravely and energetically pursue. Yet the government does not consider this to be a matter of priority. I say this to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment: my province considers this to be a matter of first priority. It is the number one priority in Newfoundland, it has a very high priority in Nova Scotia and, I suspect, in the minister's own province of New Brunswick.
It is number one priority in my province because we see in the fishing industry an opportunity for self-sufficiency for the first time. The industry presently employs about 20,000 people in the province. There is a tremendous potential for expansion if we manage the resource properly, if we develop new markets and operate under an umbrella of federal-provincial co-operation. The minister must not forget for a single moment that this is an area of shared jurisdiction. The minister may nod his head, and Hansard may not record that nod.
The fact of the matter is, there is a shared jurisdiction here. The fish that swim over the banks of Newfoundland within the 200-mile limit are just as much a resource of the province of Newfoundland as the oil that seeps from the tar sands of Alberta is a resource of the province of Alberta. The minister all too often forgets that very important fact. That is why we are concerned over the propensity of this minister, who is competent and whose heart is in the right place, but whose competence and charity are only exceeded by his arrogance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
March 13, 1978


James Aloysius McGrath: I say that regretfully because I have great personal respect for the minister. When it comes to dealing with the provinces and his provincial counterparts in Newfoundland, where this industry is our principal primary industry, or with his Liberal counterpart in the province of Nova Scotia, the minister demonstrates an arrogance that regretfully exemplifies the attitude of this tired government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: I say that in great sadness, sorrow, and in great anger. What has this meant? It has meant confrontation with the province of Newfoundland and confrontation with the province of Nova Scotia, the two principal provinces involved, at a time when the provinces and the federal government should be working together to maximize the tremendous potential and expanded opportunities that are ours in the 200-mile limit.
We know about the development program put together by the minister of fisheries for Nova Scotia and the Newfoundland minister of fisheries, and the attitude of this minister toward that program. We know of the attitude of the minister with regard to bilateral agreements to give away our exploitable surplus catches without so much as a by-your-leave to the provinces concerned; without any consultation whatsoever. I say that with great sadness because the minister has within his department a great team, competent in every respect. They are able to deal with the situation and anxious to get on with the job of working with the provinces. I only hope the minister has learned something from the experience of the past year.
It strikes me as passing strange, for example, that the Americans on the eastern seaboard, with nothing close to the potential we have, are not entering into bilateral agreements to give away surplus stocks as we are doing. On the contrary, they are planning on phasing out all foreign fishing off the eastern seaboard. They are building trawlers in preparation for that day when they will have the total situation in terms of the exploitation of the resource. What are we doing in Canada? How many foreign trawlers have we licensed; 500, 550? We have issued over 500 licences for foreigners to come and fish within our 200-mile limit. Just two weeks ago we entered into an agreement with the Spaniards, bowing to international blackmail. The Spaniards said they would co-operate in ICNAF areas if we would give them the right to catch 20,000 metric tons within our 200-mile limit.


Roméo LeBlanc: No way.


James Aloysius McGrath: Of course, we gave them 5,000 tons. We should not have given them anything. The figures certainly bear me out because I quote the total allowable catches for cod in two areas, 2GH and 2J+3KL. Those are the two areas with regard to cod.


Roméo LeBlanc: Within the 200-mile limit?


James Aloysius McGrath: Within the 200-mile limit. I give the figures for the total allowable catch of cod of 155,000 metric tons, and
Fisheries
we have in 1978 given away 52,000 metric tons to foreigners. Every time we give away surplus quotas we give away the potential for creating more jobs. This is at a time when we should now be taking steps to place orders in our idle shipyards in Halifax, Saint John and Pictou, to renew the fleet, and our fleet needs renewal. Most of our trawlers are 20 years old.


Roméo LeBlanc: Nine.


James Aloysius McGrath: O.K. Our side trawlers are on an average of 20 years old and our stern trawlers are on an average of nine or ten years old. So we have to talk about fleet replacement. What are we doing about that? I suggest we are doing absolutely nothing.
1 just address these problems to indicate to you that we are at a time when we should in fact have the total, complete and undivided attention of the minister and a department that deals exclusively with this very serious problem regarding the fishing industry.
I know the minister will deny this but I happen to believe that the evidence suggests we have been using our surplus quotas within our 200-mile limit in exchange for commodity agreements for other Canadian commodities on the European market.


Roméo LeBlanc: I deny that; I flatly deny it.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is not without coincidence that in respect of five countries where we have bilateral agreements for surplus quotas we have a total of $2.5 million in commodity agreements. That may be a coincidence, but I suspect we are using our unexploited surplus quotas to barter for commodity agreements, and that, in my estimation, is scandalous, especially when you consider that this is being done without any consultation whatsoever with the province that is to be directly affected. Of course, the province that is directly affected in most of these bilateral agreements is the province of Newfoundland.
I say there should be no bilateral agreements, apart from those bilaterals we entered into, because we had to honour them in terms of phasing out historical treaty rights. That was an obvious and necessary prelude to taking the unilateral action we took in imposing the 200-mile economic zone. Apart from that, there should be absolutely no bilateral agreements whatsoever. This is our resource and we question and challenge the right of the federal government to give away one single metric ton of that resource without consulting us first.


Roméo LeBlanc: We do.


James Aloysius McGrath: You do not, sir. The minister does not and there has not been consultation on these bilateral agreements. So much for what is the regrettable minister's arrogant approach.
The minister has a competence which augurs well for the future, and he has around him very competent people. I suppose the minister's future is limited in the extreme, certain-

March 13, 1978
Fisheries
ly to the next election, but, for God's sake, I say to him, in the few months he has left he has an opportunity to enshrine his name in the marine and fisheries annals of this nation by putting in place the new plans that are necessary if we are to maximize the returns that are there for us in the fishing industry.
We require fleet replacement, and the department should do something about these small craft harbours, a budget which has been cut year after year, to the point where we are sadly deficient in terms of wharves, breakwaters, and on-shore facilities. The department should do something about the development of new markets. That may not be the minister's direct responsibility, but obviously he does have some responsibility in this regard. We must do something about market development so we will not have the situation-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk out my own motion, though I could continue until six o'clock. I will very quickly bring my remarks to a close by saying to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Newfoundland, of Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces generally, including eastern Quebec and the Gaspe, are looking to the government for leadership. The first manifestation of this leadership will be a move by the minister's colleague, the hon. government House leader, to bring in an amendment to the Government Organization Act, setting up in law a separate department of fisheries which would provide the minister with the opportunity of making a major statement in this House. That is something we have not had since the imposition of the 200-mile limit on just exactly where we are and where we are going, and what is the potential for this tremendous industry.
Coming from a province where the unemployment rate is twice the national average, where there are pockets of unemployment in excess of 25 per cent, we see, and especially our young people in the fishing industry see, opportunities which we have never had before. The world is starving for the protein that is off our shores in abundance and which we now control by virtue of the 200-mile zone. We must ensure that the returns from that industry are maximized for our people. I would say to the minister that time is running out and I hope the government will give us some indication of exactly where we are going.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in this debate. My esteem for the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) makes me regret that he does not participate in debates more often. Of course, no blame is attached to him in what I say because I know how busy he is in committees

other than the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, where I think he would agree we are responding to what he described at the beginning of his remarks as exciting times.
The hon. member has accused me of arrogance. This is not the first time, and I regret it, because I hope he does not confuse arrogance and firmness. There are areas of responsibilities which 1 cannot delegate, and in fact, fishermen, through their organizations and their spokesmen, have asked me to be firm in the development of this new opportunity which is presented to us in the 200-mile zone.
i might say to the hon. member that bilateral agreements with other countries have absolutely nothing to do with commodity agreements, and I state this flatly. I might also add that members of the industry and members of provincial governments, either through their deputy ministers or otherwise, were apprised of the bilateral negotiations.
The hon. member gives short shrift to a very important Canadian interest, that is, fish outside the 200-miles which move in and out of the zone and which are so important to the hon. member's province. Obviously international co-operation requires us not to take a dog in the manger attitude with regard to anything in our own zone that is surplus to our needs. It is for that reason that we are willing to look at the allocation of our surplus to those countries that co-operate with us.
Also, the hon. member forgets very quickly that there are stocks which are of interest to countries which have had traditional fishing rights and which, because of the existence of St. Pierre and Miquelon, for example, are obviously of great interest to metropolitan France.
However, I meant to give quite a different tone to my remarks. I agree with the hon. member that a fisheries debate would be very useful because, owing to pressure of other business and at times owing to the overloading of the parliamentary calendar, we have not had a full Fisheries discussion in the House for some time.
I am happy to speak to the motion of the hon. member because it suggests the establishment of a separate department of fisheries. Indeed, the hon. member is echoing an earlier announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of the intention of the government to do just that. The suggestion that a separate fisheries department should be established is not a new one. It entails a reorganization which now makes sense in view of the extension of our jurisdiction to 200 miles which became effective on January 1, 1977. This, and coupled with it a series of bilateral fishery agreements with foreign countries, were important elements in the recovery of the Atlantic fisheries. Of course, other actions taken by the government in the area of fisheries make this step desirable.
[ Translation]
It is true that ground fisheries have experienced serious difficulties from 1974 to 1977. Those difficulties have shown that it was necessary to alter the policy, the operations and the attitudes to save Canadian fisheries and promote their long term productivity. In 1975, the government set forth compre-
March 13, 1978

hensive directions to develop Canadian fisheries. Those directions concerned the development of resources, the conditioning of fish, the marketing of products and social growth. As a result, various recovery programs directly connected with the policy were organized.

Through a substantial subsidy program amounting to some $130 million over four years, the federal government has successfully assisted the Atlantic fishing industry to survive through a very difficult period. In fact the picture at the present time-and I agree with the hon. member that these are exciting times-does inspire real optimism. So far as the Atlantic fisheries are concerned, particularly the groundfish species, the first priority is to build up stocks to something like their former levels of abundance, and it is for that reason that I have resisted a large and too quick expansion. I am confident that, with proper management and conservation, we will see the total allowable catch of Atlantic groundfish available to Canadian fishermen doubled by 1985, compared with the catch in 1976.
At the same time that the government was responding to the crisis in the Atlantic fisheries, it was directing significant attention to the Pacific fisheries. We are looking to a doubling of the production of the Pacific salmon by the 1990's as a result of our salmon enhancement program which is now, as hon. members know, in the first year of the five year phase.
New hatcheries, spawning channels, fishways, lake fertilization and stream improvement facilities will be put in place on the British Columbia mainland and Vancouver Island.
Another bright spot on the Pacific coast is the fast growing and highly lucrative herring roe fishery which will probably bring in $100 million this year.
It is significant that the total market value of Canada's fisheries, as the hon. member has pointed out, has now gone over the $1 billion mark. This means that for the first time in history we have attained and passed this $1 billion figure. This means also increased employment, higher returns to fishermen, and expanding export trade, all of which represent one of the brightest spots in Canada's economic scene, and this was recognized at the recent meeting of first ministers. This change in emphasis from recovery to development will be possible because of new management approaches, including such matters as entry control, stock management units, more efficient use of processing plants, and new marketing emphasis.
Fisheries management is, however, directly dependent on the sound scientific capability that Canada has established. The ocean and aquatic sciences component of our department has been conducting extensive scientific activity associated with the chemical, physical, and biological aspects of the aquatic ecosystem. This strong link between science and fisheries management has been central in past management practices and will be a key in the future.
It is essential to recognize that fisheries has not been neglected under the arrangement that has existed over the past
Fisheries
few years. But our thinking here must be dynamic, and the Prime Minister indicated last September that the time has come to adjust our organizational posture respecting fisheries and to create a separate department. The resolution of this issue is, however, not as simple as one might suspect.
Having decided that the concept of establishing a separate department would now be timely, it was important to look at the respective mandates which should emerge for the fisheries and environment departments and to ensure that the division of responsibilities is consistent with the job to be done. I am glad to say that this task is almost complete and, we hope, with the support that seems so evident from the other side, the necessary amendments to the Government Organization Act can soon be introduced.
The shaping of the new department provides us with the opportunity to review the fisheries needs which exist throughout Canada. Fisheries management is evidently the basic concern of any fisheries department. In its narrowest sense, however, fisheries management is not just a matter of setting quotas and licensing fishermen. It requires science and research, a knowledge of what, where and when to fish and an understanding of the factors which affect stock health and abundance. It involves the preservation of the aquatic entourage, the prevention and control of pollution and a positive enhancement to increase nature's stocks.
In my view, the management and conservation of the living resources of the sea are inseparable from the management of the ocean as the habitat for these resources. We have looked at the responsibilities of other departments and have found that my department has the prime responsibility for the aquatic and ecosystem aspects of the oceans. With the approval of parliament the new department would be known as the department of fisheries and oceans. This title is clear and brings the basic responsibilities sharply into focus for the public. This is important because the public of the Atlantic and Pacific coastal provinces understands the relationship between fisheries and the oceans and expects a strong and clear government response to problems and opportunities in this sector. The discussion by first ministers about fisheries serves as a good indication that provincial governments share the views of the federal government about the importance of this sector.
Perhaps 1 might indicate more specifically the responsibilities that a new department of fisheries and oceans would have. These are: first, management of all Canada's ocean fisheries and some inland fisheries; second, fisheries, oceanographic and freshwater research contributing to the understanding, management and optimum utilization of renewable aquatic resources; third, hydrographic surveying and charting; fourth, administration of small craft harbours; fifth, conduct of environmental impact studies on activities affecting aquatic renewable resources; and sixth, administration of international treaties and agreements covering management of fisheries and other aquatic renewable resources and the quality of the marine environment.
3724

March 13, 1978
Fisheries
The proposed department of fisheries and oceans would provide the focal point in the Government of Canada for the management of Canada's oceans and marine resources. The creation of a separate department demonstrates the priority the government attaches to enhancing the Canadian fishery, to our growing ocean management responsibilities and to the need for a comprehensive approach to fisheries and ocean issues.
I would like to make it very clear that many other departments, such as the Department of National Defence, the Department of Transport, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of the Environment, will retain strong, legitimate concerns and authority with respect to marine matters.
The proposed department of fisheries and oceans would be responsible for providing leadership in the development of our marine policies, posture and capabilities and for acting as the focal point for the exercise of Canada's marine responsibilities, but in a manner that would seek to concert and to co-ordinate rather than to replace the roles and authorities of other departments in marine affairs.
I should like to speak briefly about ocean sciences to reassure those who may not be aware of the commitment of the Canadian government to ocean sciences. Contrary to perceptions held by some people, ocean sciences programs in Canada have been characterized by a very healthy growth in recent years. In the short span of 18 years we now have in Canada six major centres of outstanding excellence in ocean and aquatic sciences, encompassing physical, chemical and biological sciences, whose replacement cost would easily exceed half a billion dollars. Since 1973, despite a period of fiscal restraint, the ocean and aquatic science division of the fisheries and marine service has seen its annual budget grow from $33.7 million to $57 million. Canada's ratio of ocean science expenditure as a percentage of gross national product shows the following comparisons with other advanced maritime nations: in 1974 Canada spent 1.7 times as much as the U.S.A., five times as much as each of the U.K., France and Japan and 5.5 times as much as Australia.
I would be remiss, however, if I did not speak more specifically of some ocean science activities in order to illustrate their importance in the past and their potential for the future. It is noteworthy that the majority of ocean science and survey activities are closely related to the fisheries. Examples of these are relatively large-scale projects on both coasts to study the physical, chemical and biological aspects of the water masses over the continental shelves.
The hydrographic service of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment is now working closely with the Ministry of Transport in developing and providing more precise aids to navigation and positioning systems which contribute to the more effective management of the 200-mile fishing zone and the prevention of destruction of the fisheries resource by transportation accidents. These responsibilities would continue within the new department of fisheries and oceans.

I have spoken at some length on this issue because I believe it is of great interest and importance to Canadians, especially those who rely on the fisheries and oceans for their livelihood. 1 have restricted my comments to the fisheries and marine side of things, as that is my area of responsibility. I might say, however, that while I have spoken of the establishment of a strong department of fisheries and oceans, I support the need for the Department of the Environment and the contribution that it will be required to make to assist in the management of renewable resources and in the protection of the Canadian environment. Additionally, the strong links which have grown up between the various components of the present department must continue to thrive under any new organizational arrangement.
In summary, I am convinced that the time which has been taken to work out a clear mandate for each of the new departments has been time well spent. I hope that we will be able to move quickly and to put in place the legislative and administrative arrangements associated with this major government initiative.
The potential of our fisheries-a clear federal jurisdiction since Confederation-and the potential of our three oceans are quite inseparable. The challenge of the new department of fisheries and oceans and the Government of Canada would be to take full advantage of the opportunities which are open to us.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for the persistence with which he has pressed for the establishing of a separate department of fisheries. I suspect that he enjoyed those days when he was able to debate with great oratory and demand that something be done even more than he has enjoyed his speech today, but this is his big day. His plea has at last been met by the statement which has been made by the present Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc).
I am sure that the excellent announcement which has just been made by the minister will be welcomed by all members of all parties from the Atlantic provinces and the Pacific coast and wherever there is interest in Canada's fisheries. All of us realize that things have been a bit awkward for a number of years. For a while we had a minister of the environment. That was his full title, except that under certain conditions he was also Canada's minister of fisheries. Then we had a minister of the environment with a minister of state for fisheries. For a while now we have had the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment with a Minister of State (Environment) (Mr, Marchand). I suspect that that confusion has carried over into the department as well.
However, just as soon as what the minister has announced today can be put into legislative form, that will be sorted out, and I think we all welcome very warmly what the minister has said. I believe his idea of a department of fisheries and oceans does cover the broader responsibilities of that department, and we welcome most heartily what he has said.
March 13, 1978

I am sorry that the hon. member for St. John's East has had to step out for a moment because I want to say something about one remark he made. I always enjoy his speeches, and many a time I find myself getting up as soon as I can afterwards to endorse and support what he has said. However, he said one thing today which really made me smile. He accused the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment of being arrogant. Sir, if the level of arrogance of all the cabinet ministers was no higher than that of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, they would be a human bunch over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this minister has displayed not only decency and fair play in his dealings with members of the House, but has shown extreme competence in his department. I suppose it is particularly easy to give him this bit of commendation now that he has come through with his excellent statement.
This is an occasion when it does not matter whether the motion is talked out. The purpose in moving it has been achieved. I am sure the implementation of what the minister announced today will be good for the people engaged in the fishing industry and good for the people of Canada. We all welcome it most warmly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, in putting forward the idea of a separate department I am sure the hon. member realizes that he has been preaching to the converted, or the about to be converted as soon as the machinery can be set in motion for the actual change. I think hon. members will agree that, having taken over the 63,000 square miles with the 200-mile fisheries zone, we will have plenty of water for the baptism of the new department.
All this goes to show that the fishery is big in area. It is also big in economic importance. The people of Canada need a fisheries department equipped to handle the job and identified specifically for the job. Without the separate identification of a fisheries department, the fishermen feel, in a way, cheated. The sea fishermen know that theirs is probably the one occupation in Canada that is, at almost every level, under the direct control of the federal government. I believe fishermen feel the government should dedicate a department to the care of fishermen who are so important to the economy.
I should like to say of few words about the fishing industry, particularly in British Columbia. This province is fortunate to be positioned on the Pacific rim. A quarter of the world's population, a billion people or so, live on the Pacific rim. On our side of it there is a relative abundance of fish and relatively few people. Across the Pacific the situation is the opposite. There is no abundance of fish, but there is a large
Fisheries
population. That is why it is important for Canada to develop good marketing relationships with Pacific rim countries.
Contrary to what the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) said, Canadians-and 1 am speaking of those on the Pacific coast-have a responsibility. If we are unable to catch a variety of fish because it is uneconomic for our fishermen, I submit we do not have the right to take a dog in the manger attitude and say that if we cannot fish a species, then no one else can. This is not only a moral question, but is in the best interests of Canada from a practical point of view. Surely it is in our interests to develop relationships with Asian countries that are short of protein. Trust and confidence should be built not at the expense of the Canadian fisherman but to ensure that where there is a species he does not catch, he does not lose money.
That is not to say that we should not develop these species in the future. However, at a time when they are uneconomic for him I applaud the system that has been established for the licensing of foreign vessels, which can come into specific areas on the west coast for specific catches and be monitored by the Department of Fisheries. It would not be in our interests to do less.
I should like to mention the importance of the salmon industry in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. This government-I hope I am not being partisan-is recognized-


Some hon. Members:: Never.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I knew that would be the response, Mr. Speaker. This government is recognized on the west coast as being one of the most progressive governments since Confederation.


An hon. Member:: I withdraw.


Hugh Alan Anderson: There is the 200-mile limit and the salmon enhancement program. These might not be important to members from Saskatchewan or Manitoba, but in British Columbia they are looked upon as a God-send for future developments that will bring untold wealth to the province.
The fourth largest industry in British Columbia is salmon fishing. That has nothing to do with herring or halibut. The third largest industry is tourism. Last year the minister announced a $150 million five-year program to enhance salmon stock in British Columbia. That was in addition to the 200-mile fishing limit established in January 1977. That is why I say this government will be recognized in British Columbia as having a great economic impact on the future of the province. I am proud to be part of a government which has brought in this forward looking legislation and programs which will benefit the people in my area-and all people in British Columbia.
I should like to mention some of the problems associated with the 200-mile limit and why I think Canada must take a rational approach when dealing with foreign nations. For some unknown reason the salmon has no respect for the 200-mile limit. It roams the Pacific and can be fished on the high seas
80033-23Vi

March 13, 1978
Fisheries
by other nations. We have the 200-mile limit but we should also protect salmon on the high seas. This government has worked and fought for several years at the law of the sea conferences to have a salmon article included in the combined negotiating text that would allow protection of salmon on the high seas and ensure they can be fished only within the economic zone of the country of origin.
The hon. member for St. John's East brought up the question of foreign fleets. 1 believe that if we do not allow foreign fleets to fish surplus Canadian stocks which we are not ourselves fishing at the present time, it will be much more difficult to get agreement in regard to the high seas. If we allow surplus stocks to be fished by other nations, we are in a better position to get agreement on other vital issues, such as stocks of Canadian fish that go past the 200-mile limit. This refers not only to salmon but to other stocks off the east coast of Canada. It is also important to the trailers of British Columbia that fish off the coasts of Washington and Oregon states and to British Columbia fishermen who fish off the Gulf of Alaska for halibut.
We are not operating in a vacuum. The hon. member for St. John's East would have us believe that Canada can make decisions without taking into account how those decisions affect our trading partners. I am not speaking of the trade off of merchandise goods. If we show co-operation in the fishing of surplus stocks, it will obviously be to our long-term benefit in establishing relations with foreign fishing fleets and their governments so that markets for Canadian products can be opened up. This is important. It is all very well to have a source of fish on both the east and west coasts but markets for that fish must exist. We do not consume the fish ourselves. We consume about 10 per cent of the total catch and 90 per cent is exported. In our dealings with these nations it is imperative that we be fair-minded in order to develop these markets. We should be opening up markets with the Japanese, the Spanish and the EEC for our products.
The Japanese are allowed at the present time to catch certain kinds of groundfish off the west coast of Canada. Our fishermen are concerned that at some time in the future they will want to catch those stocks themselves. I applaud them for this, as I hope they do. But if there are surpluses in the future, these surpluses should be shared with other nations of the world. Canadian fishermen should have first opportunity and this principle should be written in stone. But if Canadian fishermen do not wish to take a stock for one reason or another, one cannot close the gates and say that no one else can.
I see the hon. Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) is in the House and I would like to direct one suggestion to him. I understand the remarks which he made regarding the naming of the new department. For some time now I have thought that the perfect name to describe a new department and his title would be the ministry of aquaculture and minister of aquaculture. When it comes to dealing with
(Mr. Anderson.]
farms, land and livestock we have a Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has many responsibilities besides farms and land; he deals with agricultural exhibits, but he is called the Minister of Agriculture. In the same way that we cultivate the land we are trying to cultivate the oceans, so I suggest it would be appropriate that his department be renamed the ministry of aquaculture. It would also lead to a better title for the hon. minister.


Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for asking the government to amend the Government Organization Act of 1970 in order to set up a separate department of fisheries. We are glad of his support in this matter since it is already a declared policy of this government.
I would also like to offer to lend my Oxford dictionary to the hon. member. Apparently he is not aware of what the word "arrogant" means. If he were aware of what it means he would cut out his tongue before he would apply that word to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc).
No doubt the hon. member will recall the swearing in ceremony on September 16 last year, when the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) became the Minister of State (Environment). At a press conference the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated, and I quote:
We will separate the two departments as soon as we can get the legislation passed. In the meantime, Mr. LeBlanc will work with Mr. Marchand: one on the fisheries side, one on the environment side.
This made the government's intentions pretty clear. It was a first step in the process of separation. The next step is for the House to approve the change through a new Government Organization Act. It is good to know that we can anticipate the hon. member's support when such a bill is introduced. I would like to assure the House the details are being diligently worked out by department officials and advisers to the Prime Minister. However, there are other more pressing matters which take precedence over this particular act. Such priority legislation must come first before the House.
With this in mind, I feel sure that the hon. member and his colleagues will be eager to facilitate passage of the pending legislation. Then this matter, in which the hon. member has demonstrated such an interest, can come forward sooner. Of course, while officials are hard at work defining the exact outlines of the new departments, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment will be concentrating his efforts on fisheries matters while the Minister of State (Environment) will be looking after the environment side.
In working out the details of this organizational change we must examine, Mr. Speaker, in practical terms, just what part of the present department's responsibilities should be allocated to each of the new departments. The hon. member has already demonstrated his interest in the operations of the department a number of times. Thus I am sure 1 do not have to explain to him how complex it is, nor explain the number of interrelated
March 13, 1978

functions which have a bearing on both fisheries and environment.
I am sure everyone will agree that work should not be disrupted within the department during the separation of functions. Hon. members can appreciate that disruption at this or at any time could be critical if it affects either the fishing industry or the environment. Another consideration is the maintenance of links that already exist, and even the creation of new links. Two departments with so many common interests should continue to work in harmony and in a spirit of co-operation. In my opinion such a spirit will be even more productive than regulated interdepartmental structures.
In deciding where particular sections or units should go, whether to fisheries or to environment, we have to consider the effect not only on the unit or section but also on each department. More important, the public we serve must not be allowed to suffer from any disruption in the services we offer.
The aim of this exercise is to end up with two stronger departments, each more efficient than the combined department. The capabilities of these two new departments are expected to be greater than those of the former single ministry.
1 must emphasize this is the salient point in splitting the functions. We are seeking more efficiency and it is our belief that a proper division will accomplish just that. Do not expect to see any dilution of the present programs. Indeed, the result will be a distinct sharpening of focus. The mandates for work in both departments already exist; reorganization will allow us to refine and to re-emphasize them.
Within the environment there will have to be a strong emphasis on the watch dog role and there is a need to follow this through. There is a research role in environment, as there is in fisheries. This role may well prove to be one area where sharing and co-operation will be most profitable to both departments.
There are continuing demands for more research on the effects of climate variations; on the threats to human, animal and plant life from countless contaminants; on the capacity of air, water and soil to break these contaminants down into harmless substances; and on economical, practical means to control or eliminate industrial or domestic wastes which are harmful to the environment.
The need for research goes beyond pollution control. New technology needs to be developed to capture and re-use wastes as part of a policy of energy and other resource conservation. Therefore, there must be a stepping up of the research and development role. There will be concrete efforts made to transfer new technology to the provinces and to industry. There is an urgent need to share such new knowledge.
The government just recently renewed its commitment to one major resource sector, the forestry industry, in order to provide it with urgently needed research. This was specifically requested by the provinces at the recent meeting of premiers. We are already committed to research on the spruce budworm, the scourge of our forests. We plan to invest some $3 million in
Aeronautics Act
such research. The United States is spending $5 million in co-ordinated research which will complement our work.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable pressure for a separate fisheries department. Perhaps less vocal, but strong nevertheless, has been the movement to have a separate department to serve as a focus for the concerns of the environment and environmentalists. I use the term "environmentalist" here to indicate those who are not only concerned about the environment but who speak up for it and do something about it. It is the difference between being active rather than passive. Nearly everyone today is concerned to a degree about the environment-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member because the time allotted to private members' business has now expired. I do now leave the chair till eight o'clock.
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 Bill C-4, to amend the Aeronautics Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and the motion of Mr. Mazankowski.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: At five o'clock the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) had the floor. He has 20 minutes remaining.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-4, to amend the Aeronautics Act. I wish to speak on clause 4 which deals with the licensing of pilots and other persons engaged in the navigation of aircraft and of persons engaged in the design and manufacture of aircraft and aeronautical products. It has a lot to do with air safety.
This has been a matter of concern over the past number of years, particularly the last six months. It has been raised repeatedly by opposition members both in the House and in committee. We have received assurance after assurance that there is nothing to worry about, that everything is under control. I am sorry to say that is not the case in Canada today

March 13, 1978
Aeronautics Act
with regard to air safety. This is not a pleasant task I have this evening, but it is something that must be brought out into the open.
One of the last occasions when I raised this matter of air safety in Canada was on February 15 of this year. Part of my question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) was as follows:
I ask what measures the minister's department has taken to see that airlines are adhering to MOT standards and that operational control procedures are up to standard?
I commented with regard to a recent crash at Pickle Lake. I pointed out at that time, and I quote:
Inspection and enforcement actions by Transport Canada was not effective in correcting the deficiencies of the carrier.
I asked when the Ministry of Transport would start enforcing and correcting safety regulations relating to Canadian airlines. The minister replied in part as follows:
Action has been taken since that time. 1 wish the hon. member would not try to mislead the public with regard to that matter. This action is important.
That action certainly is important. However, the minister is unfortunately not being fully informed by the Ministry of Transport, or is not being completely honest with members of the House and the Canadian public, with regard to problems in his department. I do not believe he is fully informed of all that is going on in his department. The minister went on to say:
We are trying to do that with an extremely able group of transport officials, inspectors and agents throughout the country.
I have no quarrel with that. The officials of MOT are an exceedingly competent group. The problem lies with the senior officials in the Ministry of Transport. This is causing serious concern. The minister further stated:
As a result, I think it is fair to say that we have a safer aviation system in this country than any country of the world.
Well, I would question that, Mr. Speaker. A matter was brought to my attention recently with regard to flight engineers. I have a document here which states:
At present the airlines are operating with unlicensed personnel in the flight engineer positions, contrary to various aircraft type approvals but acceptable in accordance with air navigation order series VII, No. 2.
This document is dated March 22, 1976. Here we find first documentation of the fact that flight engineers were not properly licensed. This situation has continued right up until last week and I can inform the House when corrective measures are to be taken: they are to be taken some time in the future.
Another government memorandum headed "Personnel Licensing Handbook" states:
New standards are proposed because there is an increase in the number of airplanes in Canada whose type approval or type certificate requires that a flight engineer be included as a member of the flight crew. We are concerned about the legal aspects since the present licence status of second officers fulfilling the flight engineers duties is contrary to the requirements of specific aircraft type approvals or type certificates ond consequently of the flight crew requirements contained in the relevant approved flight manuals.

Hon. members will have noticed the reference to "legal aspects". All I can understand by that phrase is that, in the event of a crash involving loss of life, if it transpired that all the personnel on the plane were not properly licensed it would cost the Canadian taxpayers a tremendous amount of money. The tab would not be picked up by the insurance company but by the Canadian taxpayers. I do not understand how such a situation to which attention was called back in 1976 could go uncorrected.
An MOT regulation referring to flight engineer licenses states:
An applicant shall have reached his 21st birthday and shall have completed the following medical requirements in accordance with medical standards-
It goes on and on; the regulations set out in detail the qualifications these individuals must possess.
A further document makes the point that there is an apparent contravention of air regulations, ANOs and type certificates for B-747s, B-727s by Air Canada and CP Air. This is a memorandum from a civil aviation inspector to an inspector in Toronto. It states:
It has come to my attention that Air Canada and possibly CP Air are operating in contravention of Air Regulation 400, A.N.O.VII No.2, Part IV Section 38(1 )(a) and 2, the aircraft type certificate and the aircraft flight manual.
Air Regulation 400 states "No person shall fly or attempt to fly as a crew member of an aircraft unless he is the holder of a valid and subsisting licence or permit appropriate to his duties."
This memorandum, Mr. Speaker, is dated February 20, 1978. This shows that the problem which was first identified in 1976 is still with us. It goes on to say:
If these apparent contraventions are allowed to continue, an accident or incident could result in acute embarrassment to Transport Canada and possibly a substantial loss to the Canadian taxpayer in any resulting court action.
Embarrassment to the minister and to the department! We are talking about air safety and the protection of people's lives, and all this document is interested in is possible embarrassment to the ministry. This matter goes back to a telex which was sent out on May 12, 1977 with regard to examining the operating certificates of various airlines. This communication states that there might be a case for charges under the provision of air navigation order series III, (7) and so on. This document is a directive to safety inspectors across Canada. It came from the inspection branch, aeronautical licensing, and contains the following words: "When carrying out your duties you must fully consider the possibility of embarrassment to the minister and any other potential political implications." Can you imagine such a state of affairs, Mr. Speaker? We are supposed to be talking about air safety. This could only happen under a Liberal government. Politics are being placed above air safety. According to this document, the main concern is not to embarrass Transport Canada. But what about the possible loss of 150 lives? Wouldn't that be an embarrassment, too? The situation to which I am calling attention has existed unchanged for the last two years. That is typical Liberalism.
I have here also another Government of Canada memorandum. It comes from the MOT office in Montreal and is
March 13, 1978

directed to Ottawa. The subject is minimum flight crew- Boeing B-727 aircraft, and the document states:
The Acting Superintendent, Air Carrier Inspection and Certification division, has brought to my attention what appears to be an illegal practice by our national carrier, namely Air Canada.
The minimum flight crew requirements as per the Boeing B727 FA A Approved Flight Manual is quote: "pilot, co-pilot and flight engineer" unquote; however, Air Canada's flight crew for this aircraft consists of a pilot, co-pilot and second officer.
Article 400 of the Air Regulations, as well as Series VII, No. 2 of the Air Navigation Orders, are both very explicit in that the flight crew of any aircraft must conform to the requirements of the Approved Flight Manual and hold valid licences appropriate to their duties.
Since I am not aware any exceptions or dispensations to the Air Regulations regarding this matter, I have no alternative but to assume that Air Canada's Boeing B-727 operation is illegal.
I do not know the exact number of Boeing 727s that Air Canada is operating tonight, but according to this government document they are flying illegally. But that's all right; we don't want to do anything to embarrass the minister. Here we go again:
Considering the political implications of any action against our national carrier and the embarrassment to Transport-Canada that this may cause, 1 submit this problem to your attention for guidance and/or action. I must however, impress on you the urgency of this matter.
I myself would certainly think there was some urgency attached to this. "Don't do anything to embarrass the minister", flight inspectors are told. But what about the Canadian public? It is not the safety inspectors who are at fault, it is the senior officials. It is unfortunate the minister is not here tonight. I suggest to him that he should make some inquiries of his senior staff to find out what on earth is going on in his department. We have pointed out these infractions in respect of air safety in Canada time and time again. I have here further evidence of this fact, yet the government is worried about its political skin rather than the safety of the Canadian flying public. I am worried about the flying public.
I first became involved in air safety back in 1973. I was pretty naive in those days when I first came down here. Some evidence was brought to my attention about air safety and I wrote the then minister of transport. I received a most ridiculous answer indicating that I had produced no evidence and there was nothing to confirm my charges. I became angry and I raised the matter regarding air safety before the committee. I thought this was a subject that should be discussed in camera. However, the Liberal members of the committee were not going to have this matter discussed in camera. I thought that was the proper place to discuss air safety, but they were not having any of that.
At this time we are going to discuss this matter in the open, and I will continue to discuss it until corrective measures are taken. In the operations manual, section 38(1) under the heading "Crew Member Requirements" states:
No carrier may use a person as a flight crew member unless that person
(a)	holds a valid licence issued under the Air Regulations appropriate to the duties to be performed; and
(b)	is otherwise qualified in accordance with this Order.
Aeronautics Act
This problem has been with us for at least two years, and apparently it was brought to the attention again of Air Canada last week in a letter dated March 9 to the vice-president, flight operations, Air Canada, Montreal International Airport, which points out:
This letter is in reference to the licensing of personnel assigned to flight engineer duties in your aircraft.
There has been a considerable increase in numbers of aircraft with flight engineer crew positions. We are concerned about legal aspects-
They are concerned about the legal aspects! The letter goes on to state:
We are concerned about legal aspects since the present licence status of second officers-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Just listen to those two jokers over there. This is a big joke to the Liberals who are concerned about the legal aspects. They will be embarrassed before I am through with them, and they need not think they are ever going to shut me up.
The letter states:
-since the present licence status of second officers is contrary to requirements of the various aircraft type approvals and crew requirements specified in Approved Airplane Flight Manuals. To rectify this situation it has been decided that where aeroplane type flight manuals specify three essential crew members, the flight engineer shall hold a valid flight engineer's licence endorsed for that aeroplane.
Today the flight engineers do not hold valid licences and they are flying illegally. This is the situation about which the Liberals are talking and about which they are concerned over legal aspects. They are not concerned about the safety of the flying public; they are concerned about the legal aspects, and they are concerned about embarrassment to the minister. That is their big concern.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: Mr. Speaker, I have listened for the last 15 or 20 minutes to the venom coming from one hon. member. If he has accusations to make I would suggest that he make them outside where he does not have the immunity of the House. He is blaming the Liberal government for the crash at Cranbrook. We have had too much of this. We have had other members on the other side take shelter in the immunity of the House, instead of going outside and making specific allegations. I am getting sick of that. I wish the hon. member would have enough courage to go outside and make those allegations. What he is saying is that the Liberal government caused the crash at Cranbrook. I will not accept that and I do not think the public or any member of this House, other than the hon. member-and I question that "honourable"-will accept that.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I gather that my friend from across the way is disagreeing with what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) was saying. If you were listening, and I hope you were, he accused the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre of being less than honourable. If an hon. member is allowed to rise in his place and make accusations, he at least should not cast that kind of reflection on any member of the House. While he may have his

March 13, 1978
Aeronautics Act
own point of view in respect of what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said, I do not-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that we are now getting into a point of debate.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, 1 would suggest that the hon. member should stick to jails. At no time did I mention anything about Cranbrook. That will be coming out at a later date, and he can be sure of that.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, nothing is to be done about this serious problem regarding unlicensed flight engineers until July 1, 1978. I am calling upon the parliamentary secretary, because I understand the Minister of Transport if over in Hawaii, to take immediate action to get these flight engineers licensed. Never mind waiting until July 1, 1978. The government's main concern seems to be with the legal aspects. I am quite sure the hon. member has updated his driver's licence and the insurance on his home. I do not think he would let that lapse for six months, and neither would I.
This document to Air Canada also points out that the present employees assigned to flight engineer duties will have until October 1 to comply. This is absolutely ridiculous. This is a matter that was identified over two years ago, but there has been stalling, covering up and nothing done. These are unlicensed people. I am worried about the flying public while the government is worried about the legal aspects. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he talk to senior officials of MOT to get the proper procedure in place, and have present flight engineers fully licensed today, not next October.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I should like to say is that I am sorry the hon. member for Winnipeg South was not permitted to continue his remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg South Centre.


Arnold John Malone: I think it of importance to hon. members on the government side to have the opportunity of listening to the remarks of that hon. member. Obviously the reason for the shouting of "no" was that they were beginning to hear some information they felt they did not want to face up to. They were hearing information about their government-


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


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about Bill C-4. The hon. member who preceded me was talking about Bill C-4. Members across the way were responding in respect of Bill C-4. I simply want to say that members opposite were hearing something embarrassing to the government in respect of Bill C-4. Perhaps they should read Hansard to see what the member was saying. He was giving information which would indicate that, unless this government takes corrective action, it will find itself facing political embarrassment, because it is obvious the government was trying to save its political skin at the risk of people's lives. The government has failed to put into effect the kind of legislation and action that would avoid those violations of air safety regulations that have occurred. Instead we have been left with haphazard chance, as documented in detail by the hon. member for Winnipeg South.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg South Centre.


Arnold John Malone: Winnipeg South Centre, I am sorry. I will have some questions to put tomorrow.
I find it somewhat appalling that we are still debating the amendment at this time because I think it would be a simple task for members on the government side to recognize that what we are asking is for a committee to deal with the matter if something extraordinary or irregular takes place with regard to air safety or air traffic. It seems to me that this is a prerogative of parliament. When we view the heavy handed and hard nosed reaction to legislation which is before the country today, it seems to me appropriate for hon. members opposite to let us go forward with the amendment on report stage and then give the bill third reading.
When we see that on the average this government has ten orders in council to consider each day and the cabinet meets but once a week, this means they must consider some 70 orders in council a week. Since we know that they receive 3,500 orders in council a year, it soon becomes apparent that what the minister is trying to do through Bill C-4 is to grasp even more regulatory powers in ministerial hands without giving parliament an opportunity to decide. That kind of action thwarts the whole process of parliamentary democracy. The government asks for more power to be given to the cabinet and less power to the representatives of the people who are elected to voice the will of the people all across this land.
The amendment merely asks that the consultation process take place and that there be legitimate parliamentary review. There is no just cause for not accepting it. I dare members on the opposite side to have the courage to be true parliamentarians. Let them prove that there is harm or some evil associated with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski). If they cannot establish that there is something wrong with the amendment, let them simply allow us to pass it and to proceed to third reading of the bill.
Bill C-4 to amend the Aeronautics Act gives the minister increasing and arbitrary powers to impose the user-pay con-
March 13, 1978

cept and to collect the charges and fees. We all know the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) today believes in the concept according to which he uses and we pay. I think that we should review with great seriousness that kind of system in government in view of the fact that aviation associations across Canada have complained some 20 times before the committee about the lack of consultation. What the amendment before us proposes is that, whenever there are 20 members or more who believe there is something significant which should be brought before the committee, there should be a process for so doing. Until now there has been no effective appeal procedure. Under the bill the minister asks to be licensed to make all regulatory changes relative to aviation without bringing them first before parliament, and then to be allowed to declare to the aviation users that they have no appeal or recourse through a proper appeal channel.
The Minister of Transport did not want witnesses to appear before the committee. He said that this was simply a housekeeping bill and therefore no witnesses should be called. The truth of the matter is that this bill changes the whole user-pay concept. It gives to the minister strong powers to allow him to establish user fees, to decide what they will be, how they will be collected, who will collect them and how often they will be collected. It is not merely a question of the user-pay concept.
Then we come to the great disparities in transport which are one of the catalysts in the disunity in this country. A great disparity occurs under the user-pay concept as it is applied to various modes of transportation. We find that in rail transportation the user pays some 74 per cent of the cost, that in air transport the user pays somewhat less than that, that in truck transport the user pays some 30 per cent and in marine transport some 19 per cent. This means that many regions of the country are gravely disadvantaged under the user-pay concept of the minister.
Furthermore, Bill C-4 locks in a regulatory, ironclad set of agreements whereby the minister can dictate at his own whim the way in which the user-pay concept is applied, which will have a drastic effect on various sectors of the country, so much so that we are finding, in the development of the Alcan pipeline, that a study is now under way to consider the transportation of pipe from Welland, Ontario, up the St. Lawrence Seaway, round the Panama Canal and up the Pacific coast to Alaska simply because it is far cheaper to send it that way than to send it across land. The real reason for that is the user-pay concept-that the user pays 74 per cent of the cost of rail transport as against 19 per cent of the cost of marine transportation. We are of the view that the minister should not have those kinds of powers and prerogatives to impose his will on various regions of the country.
The fact that we cannot haul steel pipe by rail across the country economically causes a loss which weighs heavily on the prairie region. The objective of the user-pay concept is to pay MOT's debts. In essence, what we have found is that the Department of Transport can indulge in all kinds of extravaganzas following which the user-pay concept comes
Aeronautics Act
into effect. What happens is that those who dream grandiose dreams never need worry about the price tag because they can simply tack the price tag on to those who use the system. There is no better example than the imaginative but silly plan for Mirabel airport and the imaginative and silly, if not stupid, plan for Calgary airport. Max Ward of Wardair stated at the opening of the Calgary airport that no one had checked with them, one of the users of the airport, about the user-pay concept. This government goes ahead holus-bolus believing it has the prerogative to dream up heavenly ideas about what an airport should look like, and, irrespective of the price tag, tacks the price on to whoever uses it.
The amendment states that there should be recourse from a government decision: that whenever there are motions from various aviation groups which come to 20 or more members of parliament, they can appeal to Mr. Speaker to set up a body within the committee system which would allow for some kind of appeal procedure. I do not know how the government of the day can sit quietly on its hands listening to the kinds of speeches that have been made in the House about some of the dangers in air traffic today, the lack of controls in air traffic safety and the weaknesses in its own legislation, yet continue stubbornly to refuse to allow a process to be created whereby concerns about various policies affecting the aeronautics industry could be voiced. So long as the user-pay concept is in practice, the government can indulge in extravagance and simply pass on the cost to the users. What we ask for in the amendment is simply a system of checks and balances.
If we are going to have the user pay policy, we ask that there also be a policy of user say. We are asking that there be a system whereby, if the government is going to impose a costing out for those who use aircraft facilities, those who use aircraft facilities have an input. At the present time that is not the case. Aviation groups say that they have complained 26 times to the committee and that they have attempted to be heard by the government. However, the government simply will not give them a hearing.
I would like to speak about the small aircraft industry and the tremendous disincentives the government has imposed upon it. Probably no other nation in the world is more naturally suited to the proliferation of air traffic than this country, unless perhaps it might be the Soviet Union. I can understand why countries like Luxembourg or Belgium might want to restrict the amount of air traffic, but in a country as vast and as sparsely populated as Canada the encouragement of air traffic makes sense. The majority of our resources are located far from inhabited areas. In many cases the only way to reach the resources of this great land is by air.
Few people understand the scope of Canada. It is farther from Yellowknife to the North Pole than it is from Yellowknife to San Francisco. It is a shorter trip from Edmonton to Mexico City than it is from Edmonton to Halifax. We live in a very large land, many of our resources are in places where there are no railways, no docks and no highways. Yet we have
3732

March 13, 1978
Aeronautics Act
a government and a minister imposing excise taxes on aeroplanes, federal sales tax on aeroplanes, and the user pay concept, to the detriment of this nation and without consultation with the aviation groups which feel they ought to have an input. The minister has not only jeopardized the aviation industry but by his very actions has also jeopardized the development of the regions of Canada.
The minister was willing to jeopardize safety by charging user fees on every touch and go. I would like to explain that. The minister said that the user pay concept would apply every time a plane landed. Every time it landed a fee would have to be paid for the use of the airstrip. However, what about the young pilot training for an aircraft pilot's licence? Training pilots have to land their planes, take off, circle around, land again and then take off again. The minister said that every time a plane landed it would have to pay for the use of the airstrip. The minister thought he should charge a fee every time a plane touched a runway and lifted off again. That user pay policy affects safety itself.
Most people are conscious of pocket book issues, even if the government is not. They recognize that the government is trying to destroy aviation as a mode of travel in this nation. The government has been doing that with its import excise taxes, with federal sales taxes and with the user pay concept. It is trying to discourage most aspects of the air industry. Light aircraft in many cases can be demonstrated to be just as efficient, and often more so, than the automobile, but the use of the light aircraft mode of travel has been extensively discouraged, very much to the detriment of Canada. Most of Canada can be reached only by aircraft. It is the policy of our party that, if there is to be user pay, there must also be user say and that there should be an opportunity for those who use air travel in this nation to have a say. In effect, the Minister of Transport is attempting to shingle the roof with a sledgehammer. He does not want to listen. He does not want to see committees set up so that there can be the right of appeal.
The minister did not want any aviation groups to appear before the committee studying this bill. He was willing to jeopardize the safety of air traffic by charging the users of touch and go systems in pilot training. The minister wants to have the authority to avoid blame. I submit that with this bill the minister is attempting to take unto himself power without giving anyone any recourse.
The minister claimed that this is a mere housekeeping measure, but in fact he is attempting to change his policy under the sheets in the dark of night. He is chaining, gagging and restraining the public in solitary confinement. The personal concept of the minister is that he uses and we pay. That is a very unsavoury position for a minister to take. He has the same capacity for listening to the Canadian people as that of a brick.
The minister is the Edsel of Canadian national unity. To a large degree he has been a stumbling block in the development of transportation in this country. He is a masochistic minister with a cat-o'-nine-tails who continues to blame and whip users. To the minister it does not matter what extravagance there be,
[Mr. Malone.1
whether it be Mirabel, the Calgary airport or the planned airport for the Toronto region. The minister feels he can design and build whatever he wants, provided he has a whipping boy to blame and provided he can let users pay for his extravaganzas. In view of the concepts which have been perpetuated, representative government is virtually gone. The government is afraid to let people come before our committees to be heard. The government is afraid to allow an amendment which would allow 20 members-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arnold John Malone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not keep the House much longer.
The government is attempting to rule by regulation rather than to allow this parliament to open the channels of communication so that people may use the parliament of Canada as a means by which to appeal to members of this House and therefore to the country. This government acts largely by order in council. Some 3,500 orders in council were passed last year. Not one of them was brought before parliament. By contrast, in Great Britain there were only ten, and every single one was referred to the British parliament. This government has sidestepped parliament.
The whole concept of orders in council was introduced at a time when it was believed that the cabinet needed to act when parliament was in recess for the summer months. In earlier days when orders in council were passed by cabinet they had to be ratified by parliament. Today, legislation ends up on the books by order in council without the citizens of the country having had an opportunity to review it through their members of parliament.
We had an example of this in the past 18 months in Bill C-51, which contained what was called the gun control legislation. All the regulations are subject to change by order in council, as is also the case with Bill C-4, which is now before us. We recall that the metric system, when Celsius replaced Fahrenheit and kilometres replaced miles,-came into being without legislation but through order in Council. In Bill C-4, the government is again attempting to by-pass parliament in the belief that 30 people have the wisdom and the power to make all decisions for the country without recourse or appeal to parliament. People who have real concern about the issues involved would have no opportunity to take them to a forum where they could be heard.
If this government continues on its present path, elections will become a means of rotating parties. If every party were to adopt the same position as the government has, elections would simply be a chance for the people to express their will about who they want their dictator to be. Orders in council and the
March 13, 1978

avoidance of parliament do not give representative government. It just means that every four years or so there will be a new government to make decisions irrespective of the wishes of the people.
I submit that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vegreville is a reasoned request that the government examine the Aeronautics Act again. He is offering the government a chance to allow people who might in some way be affronted by the regulations to bring their problems to the notice of parliament and its committees through to their duly elected representatives. In this way they will be able to explain their briefs and seek amendments.
What we have at the present time is a government locked in cement, unwilling to hear its constituents and believing that an election is only an opportunity to change one dictator for another. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs for this nation, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of my friends in the official opposition mention consultation by the government with the people concerned with this legislation. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) know what I am going to say. Over the past weekend there was so much consultation by the government with people in Edmonton, Regina and Calgary that we could hardly stand it. They hit Regina like a plague of Russian thistles or grasshoppers or gophers. They were underfoot all over the place, consulting. It remains to be seen whether the representations made to them by my stock producers, the trade union movement, the National Farmers Union and a few other organizations will lead to results.
The people out west are pretty tough, especially those from Saskatchewan. They have gone through drought, floods, Russian thistle, grasshoppers, coyotes, Liberals and Tories for 50 years.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Not necessarily in that order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are all asking ourselves where these fellows were when we needed them last year and the year before, and the year before that. With all this consultation in these last few weeks, we do not know whether it is conversion on the road to Damascus or whether there is an election coming.
I hope the consultation will bear fruit. I hope a number of Liberal candidates in Alberta and Saskatchewan will get some of the results that members of parliament from the Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic parties have been trying to get for the past four years. I think of postal walks, guaranteed prices for farm products related to the cost of production, and such things. We will all be happy, including those of us on the opposition benches, if the consultation on the weekend bears fruit. We will just nominate some more Liberal candidates every four years to get results and then the rest of us can stay as members of parliament.
Aeronautics Act
My friends to my right mentioned user-pay. I notice that government spokesmen have been backing off that item lately. For the last few years I have been saying there is no mode of transportation in Canada where the user pays, and there never has been-not even pedestrians. Transportation has always been in a deficit position. As long as anybody clings to that concept our transportation systems will continue to discriminate against people because of where they live, and against products or produce because of where they are located.
During the debate on second reading of this bill, and in committee, we were reminded that there are three United States commercial air carriers who owe $5.8 million for user charges on the North Atlantic routes. Initially, I sensed that my colleagues in the official opposition felt sorry for Trans World Air Lines, Pan American Air Lines and Seaboard Air Carriers. In committee, however, we learned that these and all other carriers pay the same type of charges to Iceland, Denmark and Great Britain, but for some reason or other, they do not want to pay Canada. The three airlines are contesting this bill of $5.8 million in the federal court.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I want to wish the Department of Transport well. If these companies do not pay their accounts I hope they are refused landing rights, navigational aids and everything else at Gander and at other airports in the Atlantic provinces. All other airlines have been paying fees to other countries as well as Canada, but these companies have been trying to chisel us. I hope the ministry succeeds in defending our right to collect reasonable charges for services that Canadian taxpayers provide to all international airlines.
Another provision in the bill that we approve in principle is the land zoning regulations. The government's stated objective is to protect airports and airport sites from urban development encroaching upon their boundaries. We agree that the federal aviation authority should have control over the development of land near airports and as well the ownership of it.
We would make one exception, Mr. Speaker. If there was housing development on the land long before an airport was built, it is then a little late in the day for the government to move in and restrict or refuse to properly compensate people who were there long before there was an airport. I agree that when a new airport is built or a present one is enlarged the public aviation authority should own and control that land. No development should be allowed within a one-mile radius of that airport. It should be a green belt, or farmland or perhaps a golf course. But no construction should be allowed. There are examples in Canada where housing developments existed long before an airport was built. I am thinking particularly of the Stanley Park area of Thunder Bay. If there are four houses on eight lots, and someone wants to construct houses on the other four lots, it makes little or no difference whatsoever to the use of that present airport location. That is the kind of exception which should be made in the control the national aviation authority should have over development in and around public airports.
80033-24y2

March 13, 1978
Aeronautics Act
My colleague, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was talking about liability insurance and compensation for passengers as well as for the next of kin of those killed in aircraft accidents. I agree to some extent with his remarks but I do not think he went far enough. Whether an accident or mishap is due to negligence, or to what the legal profession calls an act of God, it seems to me that every aircraft passenger should be insured. This should be a form of no fault insurance. A very small percentage of passengers travelling by air take out aircraft insurance. I suppose we all did the first few times we flew but after that we quit bothering. The fees charged for $50,000, $100,000 or $250,000 worth of insurance are relatively modest. It would seem to me that everyone travelling by air would be willing to pay a reasonable premium that would provide a standard and reasonable amount of compensation in the event of injury or death. I would estimate, and I stand to be corrected if I am very far out, that for somewhere between 50 cents and $1 extra on each airline ticket every passenger could obtain between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of insurance in the event of injury or death due to an airline accident, no matter what the cause.
It seems to me that kind of coverage should be compulsory, particularly for people travelling by commercial aircraft. There should not be any fine print on the back of the ticket. Every person who flies via a commercial airline should know that when they purchase their ticket the extra 50 cents or $1 paid is to cover $100,000 or $200,000 worth of insurance which will be paid by the insurance company to the injured party or to the next of kin in the event of accident. I suspect any insurance company or group of insurance companies, having that kind of business amounting to many millions of dollars a year, would be only too pleased to insure every passenger for $100,000 or $250,000 in the event of injury or death. Normal standard practice should automatically include insurance coverage in the purchase of an airline ticket.
As illustrated by my colleague the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, litigation which goes through the courts six, eight, 10 years after the event should not be paid for by those who were injured or the next of kin of those killed. This litigation can cost tens of thousands of dollars. If the breadwinner dies due to an aircrash it can become necessary to borrow money to live. Surely as a matter of common decency a nominal charge on every airline ticket would cover the premium for a substantial insurance coverage for injury or death due to a mishap.
This is not socialist dogma, even though it might sound like that coming from me. It is a matter of treating one another decently. It is a matter of saying that there is something immoral about trying to make a profit from the misfortunes of others. It is something we should darn well do. In fact that is one regulation which, if the Minister of Transport brings it in tomorrow, I would agree with.
The amendment put forward by the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski) is an excellent one. We will support it. We agree with it. However, I want to caution my friends to the right that they should not be under any illusion; whether

there be a majority Liberal government or a majority Conservative government, if this kind of amendment were part of the law it would still be voted down by the majority. If 20 members signed a motion and there was a debate, a majority government would still vote it down. However, it is still a valuable item to have in the legislation. The deputy minister, the airlines experts in the Ministry of Transport, members of the Canadian Transport Commission or even those in consultation with the airline industry would be aware in the course of drawing regulations that unless they do an excellent job with these regulations there will be some kind of a row in parliament. Therefore, these people will be more careful and thorough when drafting regulations. No matter what party is in power, none is perfect. Rome was not built in a day. Of course, the NDP was not building Rome either. There might be the odd miracle situation where some backbenchers of whatever party which had a majority would rebel and vote for a motion signed by 20 members. Some of them might even sign it. But with that caution hanging over the heads of those drafting regulations and those who sit in cabinet and pass them by order in council, I submit they would be more careful and conscious of what those affected by legislation feel about it.
Even with this kind of provision, Mr. Speaker, whether it be a majority or a minority government the party in power still has the ultimate responsibility, as it must under a system of responsible government. Letting parliament decide by vote concerning a motion signed by 20 members is the name of the game in this system of parliamentary government. If the motion passed and the regulations were submitted to the appropriate committee of this House, this would be a good indication that the government of the day had made a severe error in what it had drafted.
There is no doubt that 90 per cent of such motions would not get passed. Some might pass in a minority parliament, but in a majority parliament it would be extremely rare for one to pass. If one did, it would indicate a revolt amongst not only opposition members, but members on the government side as well. That is the value of the amendment.
I am under no illusion, and neither are my friends to my right, that this will be a 100 per cent guarantee of safeguard regarding government regulations. However, it will at least serve as part of the checks and balances in a parliamentary system of government, regardless which party is in power. This amendment provides an avenue of appeal before, during or after the publication of regulations not only by those affected, whether it is zoning or any other regulation, but by any other interested groups that might think the regulation too strong or think it should not be there at all.
If we are going to have regulations on zoning, the methods of determining compensation for those affected are inadequate. In fact, as I understand the bill, compensation is provided only to those using land in a manner which does not conform to the new regulations. It does not provide compensation to anyone else who might be caused injury by airport
March 13, 1978

construction or operation. Surely that is an inadequate provision. Compensation should be available to those who can justify injury, not only those affected by land required for airport development.
I hope the government will accept this amendment. They know as well as we do that the overwhelming majority of motions would not pass this parliament even though 20 members would sign. In fact, a motion would not pass even if 50 members would sign it. It would be debated for a day or so. Unless there was some kind of severe injury being caused by the government which resulted in a revolt among backbenchers, 90 per cent of the motions would not pass. But the fact that it is there would at least indicate a desire and a willingness by the government to be a lot more conscious of what they put in regulations, when, how and where they consult about regulations, and how, when and where they enforce those regulations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had almost run out of gas anyway.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Gas? Never use that word.


Mr. Nielsen:: That's a bad word.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Like user-pay.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am glad I have extra time because most of my colleagues agree with what I have to say. I have not really stepped on anyone's toes except those of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others in my caucus by suggesting this kind of amendment would be useful in all types of legislation. This is something all members should think about. It is certainly not a partisan amendment because every political party takes its turn some time or other being in opposition or in government. Over the long haul, it really does no harm to a government, but it certainly is good for the work of parliament.
Most important, it gives the citizens of this country the feeling that there is an avenue of appeal through their elected representatives. It is a method other than having a cabinet hit your town two or three weeks before an election is called. It is an avenue by which citizens can voice their opinion and concerns to their elected members of parliament. There would be second thought, consideration or debate not only about the laws we pass, but about regulations a government may bring in as a result of those laws. Surely that is an improvement over what we have been doing for many years.
There is now provision in two or three pieces of legislation for this type of motion to be put, signed by ten, 20 or 50 members of parliament. It has been tried on a few occasions in the past few years. I do not think any have been passed by the
Aeronautics Act
majority of members of the House. However, it did provide an avenue for members on all sides to express their view concerning some activity by government as a result of a law passed by this parliament or regulations emanating from a law passed by this parliament. There was that opportunity for members on all sides to discuss it for a day or so.
This kind of amendment has been moved on many occasions by members of all three opposition parties. I am not certain, but I believe that when the government party was in opposition in the late fifties and early sixties they endeavoured to get this type of amendment, or something similar to it, incorporated into legislation. Therefore, it is not peculiar to any one particular party. It is a valuable mechanism in the legislative process.
It is particularly valuable as an avenue to appeal or reconsider a decision made, or action taken, by the government or the administration of that government.
I hope members on all sides will accept this amendment as an excellent addition to this bill. We take pleasure in supporting the amendment.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to intervene in the debate on this amendment to Bill C-4. I did not have the opportunity to participate in all the committee meetings I would have liked to with regard to this bill.
At the outset, I commend the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) on the work he has done both in the House and in committee. He is a true friend of general aviation. As a private pilot, I know some of what he has done for aviation. As I say, I regret I was not able to attend all of those meetings.
With regard to this bill, the hon. member for Vegreville has been able to convince the government to drop clauses 7 and 8 which would have resulted in two classes of both passengers and carriers. He was instrumental in eliminating the necessity of bonding all aircraft up to 12,500 pounds. The hon. member worked hard to get changes in the regulations having to do with the licencing of small airfields which is so important to flying farmers and others who operate small airfields, as I once did.
As to the necessity for this amendment, it is necessary for someone to get the various orders put out by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) because the Department of Transport is invariably cast in the role of an adversary. A person might think he was in court. Whatever it is, whether it is a medical update, the licensing of pilots, the licensing of fields or other facilities, there are regulations dealing with every aspect of general aviation and the department is always an adversary, never a supporter. I know from my own experience and from the mail I get that the department inevitably takes an adversary position.
There was a time when we had one or two friends in the department, people we could count on. Now I do not think we have any. There used to be one or two people who were well known to general aviation and who could be counted on. If


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have just lost me there. I just took off.


John Raymond Ellis: I lose the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) quite easily on a subject of this sort, I appreciate that. I go into this history purposefully to show that these specifications were laid down and then broken by the department; they were laid down without the department really knowing what it was doing and 17,000 private aircraft owners were forced to put this apparatus in their airplanes.
The crash considerations to which I have referred were then changed and a duration of 11 milliseconds was introduced. When this happened, manufacturers began converting to high impedance electrical latches instead of mechanical latches. They found that the latches they had been using were activated by impact; there was a rash of such occurrences. To overcome some of these difficulties the industry turned to the use of lithium batteries which had already been introduced by a number of manufacturers. Widespread, indeed, almost exclusive use of lithium batteries was adopted. However, it was found that lithiums leaked sulphur dioxide.
If I am going to lose the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, I shall lose him completely now because I am putting into the record the fact that while sulphur dioxide is chemically inert it becomes quite corrosive when combined with moisture. Or, to put it in another way, S02 + H20 = H2S03 and this becomes sulphur dioxide. It becomes even worse in the presence of oxygen, H2S04 results, and even though the cell manufacturers realized this and tried to prevent it with the installation of a safety vent, cells not sealed properly would seep gas and corrosion would take place, damaging the electronically printed circuit board and causing accidents or disabling the instrument.
There was one unit which was immune because of the excellent seals which had been put in, but the firm concerned subsequently went out of the business. If a pilot or aircraft owner had one of these instruments and it would not work, he usually went to the Director General of Civil Aeronautics in Ottawa who gave him a waiver enabling him to fly without any ELT as long as a sign was placed on the side. If the pilot really wanted to comply he had to buy one of the other types.
But the problems surrounding the use of lithium persisted, resulting in explosions and at least one serious crash. The cause of this is not totally known. We know that experts from NASA in the United States and the U.S. army have been looking into this problem and they are coming up with some answers.
March 13, 1978

March 13, 1978
Aeronautics Act
fly on instruments, all you have to do is slip across the border-and in the air the border is not very visible-and fly on instruments in the United States. In this way you by-pass the Canadian fixed base operators and deprive them of income from which they would benefit.
Canadian aviation has the potential to expand and improve considerably, but it will not do so if we are faced with restrictive and prohibitive rules such as those this department continually tries to impose.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Raymond Ellis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to wrap up my comments with one more sentence and say that it is not helpful for me or any other pilot not to be allowed to use the facilities that are already there. Certainly using those facilities would be of benefit to all pilots. We are back to the adversary role which the department is continually playing. It would be of benefit to us to have the opportunity to review the regulations as they come up. This would not involve all the regulations but only those which are in need of review, those which are not in the best interests of general aviation.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise tonight to speak on the amendment to Bill C-4 proposed by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski), who has put a lot of work into the communications aspect of the work before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. Even though I am not a member of that committee, I have followed very closely developments in the aviation business in Canada, particularly since I come from a constituency which depends exclusively on aircraft to link us with many of the more remote communities. Some 25 to 30 communities in northern Manitoba alone depend exclusively on aircraft to service them, and if we looked across Canada we would find the same situation in Saskatchewan and in the Northwest Territories.
In speaking to the amendment I should like to point out some of the problems that we experience daily in air transportation and the confusing situation in which the operators find themselves. I will give hon. members a brief history of what has happened and I will use Manitoba as an example. Back in 1966 the then provincial Conservative government under Duff Roblin made a commitment that by 1970, Manitoba's centennial, every community of 100 persons or more would have an emergency airstrip. Prior to that time the 25 to 30 isolated communities in the north were serviced solely by float equipped aircraft in the summertime which would land on lakes adjacent to the communities. In the wintertime ski equipped aircraft landed on lakes. Anyone who has landed on a frozen lake in the wintertime, a lake covered with snow drifts, will know that it is a pretty hazardous operation. Many
(Mr. Ellis.]
times the pilot actually risks his life and those of his passengers as well as risking damage to the aircraft.
Thus the decision was made to build emergency airstrips in the communities so as to enable pilots to service them and to take patients out to hospitals in larger centres, most of the remote communities being equipped only with small nursing stations with perhaps one nurse on staff. The airstrips were located in various communities without too many engineering services. There were fellows like myself who worked for the department in the province of Manitoba. We went out to those places, located suitable communities in need of an airstrip and found a site with free approaches, no obstacles in the way at either end. We always tried to pick an airstrip facing the prevailing winds.
Over a period of five to six years we had airstrips in most communities in northern Manitoba. They were classed only as emergency landing strips, a maximum of 2,000 feet long. This is when the Department of Transport arrived on the scene. Prior to that time these airstrips were classed only as emergency airstrips, but with the aviation industry in the north expanding in leaps and bounds and communities increasing in population, the demand for air travel also increased.
What happened then was that many of the operators in the north switched from ski to wheel operation. In many cases pilots landing on shorter airstrips considered the operation safe enough, but in the view of the Department of Transport the standard was not met in those operations. Their requirements in the north were the same as for Mirabel or the airports at Toronto or Winnipeg. The communities in the north had to have the same standards as were in the rest of the country.
This created havoc in the aviation industry and in the service to the various communities because the type of regulations that were being imposed prior to the involvement of MOT were the concern of the province of Manitoba. A certain set of criteria was arrived at with regard to the placement of terminal buildings, the approaches, the grading required, the width of the landing strip and the clearing and the distance required for a DC-3, a Twin Otter, a single engine Beaver or an Aztec or whatever type of aircraft might be landing in that community. We received specifications from DOT, as it was named then, and we tried to stick to them in the construction of the airstrips.
But lo and behold, after we made some 25 airstrips usable- we had not spent the amount of money which was probably required by DOT because their planning involved engineering studies, engineers on site and so on, and we did not have the funds to put into that type of construction-officials of the Department of Transport made a swing through northern Manitoba in 1975, checked all the airports and decided to close the following airstrips in northern Manitoba: Poplar River, St. Theresa Point, Oxford House, Red Sucker Lake, and Little Grand Rapids. These communities are isolated and the only way to reach them is by aircraft.
Certain specifications were set down which had to be met before these five airstrips could be licensed for certain air carriers, but because of the remoteness of these communities,
March 13, 1978

what happened in many instances was that it was impossible to get equipment into the communities to bring the airstrips up to a standard that was created all of a sudden. In certain instances the location of the terminal building was not according to the regulations. This had a very bad effect on communities such as Oxford House, which an airplane could overfly on its way to another remote area but where it could not land because it did not have a class II or class III licence. So the people in the community had no air transportation facilities out of there unless they chartered an aircraft; and if they did that, it did not matter what aircraft they used because the Department of Transport did not require the regulations to be adhered to by a charter. However, there was a different situation if you were going in on a scheduled run.
This put the community in the position where it was costing more to bring goods in. It was costing more for transportation, and that hindered development. In the case of Oxford House, exactly one year later the terminal building sat exactly where it was in 1975. No further improvements have been made to that particular airstrip. The strip is some 4,200 feet long with a 300-foot wide landing surface which is gravel. However, no major changes to the design of that airstrip took place. This is one which had been closed. Lo and behold, in 1976 permission was granted to re-licence that airstrip for a class III carrier. For one year this community's development was hindered, and then all of a sudden there was a reversal.
When the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) was talking about ELTs, I was reminded of the confusion northern carriers face. As 1 said before, without aircraft in the north there is no means of transportation and communication. It seems that the larger the aircraft we get into these communities, the cheaper it will be.
In many locations and in many circumstances operators in the north are totally confused as to what the Ministry of Transport is doing with regard to the aviation business. I hear stories of air carriers still holding class II licences in communities where there have been no aircraft for the last six or seven years. That hinders the development of many other carriers in the area because communities are protected by licence but those licenses have not been used for the last five to six years. We can see this happening throughout the north. I receive repeated complaints from operators in the north. They are really confused about the directions which come from the Ministry of Transport. There are many good men in the Ministry of Transport, and I think they give good suggestions to the government, but the government is not sensitive enough to react to some of those suggestions. The government is hindering the aviation business and confusing those who are trying to get into it.
Just recently a chap from a very remote community applied for class IV licence so that he could serve that community, but the CTC turned the application down because it was felt that the community was already sufficiently served. That was the only aircraft based in that community, and the reason for
Aeronautics Act
having it there was to serve the community in case of emergency.
Back in 1976 it was decided to impose a $2.60 landing fee on private aircraft landing at airstrips. This caused concern among private pilots. It is necessary for many people in the north to have small aircraft in order to go to larger centres because they have no other means of communication. Because of pressure from this side of the House the government withdrew that part of its order in council and the fee remained at $1. However, it was only through pressure brought by various pilots' associations, private air carriers and others that there was a turnaround.
I would like to speak briefly about the amendment. As I understand it, Bill C-4 proposes to give the minister a more arbitrary power to collect money from users of airports. The user-pay concept is really what I see coming out of it. We see this concept being used by the Department of Transport not only with regard to air carriers but also with regard to ground transportation. The policy has been applied to the CNR as well.
In 1974 at Thompson, Manitoba it was recognized that an expansion of the airstrip would be necessary to accommodate the traffic that airport had. It was the eleventh busiest airport in Canada that year. It was a jumping off point not only for Manitoba but also for the Northwest Territories because of its location and because of its being served by rail and by road. Much effort was put into attempts to get an expansion of the airstrip, an expansion of the ramp area and an expansion of the cross strip.
Originally that airport was laid out by the Department of Transport. The site was selected by that department. I do not know who was responsible for the forward planning of that airstrip, but when it came time to expand the ramp area and to put in a cross strip it was found that there was permafrost in the general area. After soil samples were taken as a result of drilling it was found that there were many ice lenses and silt pockets to the east and to the west of the existing ramp. This caused the department to have to excavate thousands of yards of material, to dig the permafrost out and then to fill the excavation in with gravel. With the vast amounts of land we have in northern Manitoba one would have thought that perhpas in the planning of the airstrip in the first place a location which did not have a permafrost problem would be chosen. A group of engineers from the department chose the site, and in the wisdom of the department the present site was chosen. However, if a different site had been chosen thousands of dollars spent on excavation could have been saved.
Fortunately, we now have a ramp area, but it is still not sufficiently large due to the terrain. Many of the facilities have had to be put on the far side of the airstrip, and another road to that location has had to be built. All across the north many locations are still not served by good facilities when an emergency is imminent. In this regard I say that taking the ELTs out of aircraft in October was a serious mistake. I see now that we have them back in. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call it ten o'clock.

March 13, 1978
Adjournment Debate BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there is someone on the government side who can tell us what we will do tomorrow. Will we continue with Bill C-4 or with something else?


Mr. Blais:: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue with Bill C-4 to its conclusion and then proceed with Bill C-26.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the matter which brings me into the adjournment debate tonight stems from a series of questions I put to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) on March 7, 1978, which appear at page 3512 of Hansard. These questions dealt with the declining international confidence in Canada's economic future and the effect that lack of confidence has had on our bedraggled dollar. It is the continuing story of our shrinking dollar.
In a nutshell, I asked the minister on March 7 how it was that confidence in Canada had sunk to such a low that commercial loan companies such as Traders, IAC and GMAC required high credit ratings and lower borrowing rates than the federal government itself. I asked the minister also how it was that our foreign reserves had been allowed to become so vulnerable to the activities of international traders in Kuwaiti and elsewhere that one Kuwaiti investor had put the federal government on the run in their attempt to defend the dollar. How many more billion dollar investors were there, I asked, holding relatively short term or medium term securities that might be thrown on the Canadian market, wreaking havoc on the international exchange markets as far as our Canadian dollar was concerned?
As might be expected, the minister's answers to these questions, like his handling of the entire dollar crisis, was sadly deficient. In effect, he tried to shrug it off as some mere rumour.
I want to put on the record tonight that commercial loan facilities did get cheaper 90-day money on March 7 than the federal government, and that international investors have managed to sabotage government attempts to defend the dollar. The fact that the minister is either uninformed about
the developments or unwilling to discuss them rationally only serves to undermine confidence in our country all the more.
Let there be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, the head-in-the-sand pronouncements of the Minister of Finance have already led to a significant loss of faith in this country and our dollar. This was clear as long as October of last year, when we had the last dollar crunch. On October 13, 1977 a Globe and Mail article reported that international investors were "confused" over the government's policies. I quote:
The confusion over official policy was increased by Finance Minister Jean Chretien's repeated statements that the government does not intend to defend any particular rate for the Canadian currency . . .
"... when you have a floating currency, you have to let it float" Mr. Chretien said.
The article concluded that many people believe that the inaction on the devalued dollar reflects unresolved policy differences within the government. Mr. Speaker, it was obvious then, as it is clear now, that this unfortunate minister's misstatements have contributed to rather than alleviated the dollar crisis. Such lack of confidence in the ability of the government is justified when you consider the response of this administration to the entire affair. Today, for example, the government is busy trying to convince Canadians that the devalued dollar is good for us. What nonsense, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that a lower dollar means higher inflation due to higher priced imports. Dropping 14 cents in relation to the U.S. dollar means a 4 per cent hike in the inflation rate; that is, 4 per cent on top of whatever inflation we already have built into the system. Is this good for Canadians?
If the 89-cent dollar is so good, why did the administration fight so long to keep it at par? Why did they encourage Canadians to borrow $15 billion in foreign funds so that the dollar would be kept stable? If it is good to have an 89-cent dollar, then it must have been wrong to have a $1.03 dollar before. If an 89-cent dollar is good, would not a 79-cent dollar be even better? Think what a 29-cent dollar could do for us.
The fact is that our dollar has been routed, and the only defence the administration has is to point out that a cheaper dollar will help our exports. But this is a little like Napoleon rationalizing his retreat from Moscow-it was good for the troops because they wanted to see Paris anyway. The whole world knows, and even the Minister of Finance must realize it some day, that a falling dollar such as we have had in Canada is bad for Canadians. Some day he will have to admit that.
I believe that tonight his parliamentary secretary should be required to give a fuller explanation why they are now trying to rationalize that a bad thing is something that is in fact good. The British tried this. The British devalued their currency three times. They were consistently fed the syrup this government is feeding to the Canadian public, that somehow a devalued dollar would restore the economy.
This government has treated our economic problems with aspirin. At one time we were told wage and price controls would solve inflation. We were told controls would give us 4

March 13, 1978

per cent inflation this year. Last month inflation was 9 per cent. Now we are being told the chronic problems we have in this country will be solved by some type of a falling dollar, to a level they have yet to state.


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


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is our most recent information that borrowing costs to the Government of Canada on 90-day treasury bills remain below those of the major finance companies over the same term. I want to emphasize "over the same term." You cannot compare 90-day bills of the government with a 30-day note to a private company, a situation which is sometimes alluded to by members opposite. This must be particularly taken into consideration when account is taken of the commissions that such companies must pay to dealers that market their obligations.
Nevertheless, it is generally true that in Canada the spread between interest rates paid on Government of Canada debt and those on the debt of other Canadian borrowers has narrowed over, say, the last year, not only on short-term but also on long-term securities. The question then arises: Would one wish to describe this process as reflecting a decline in the government's credit rating? Can one simply look at interest rate levels, relative or absolute, and make such judgments? Despite this narrowing, the interest rate paid by the government of Canada on 90-day treasury bills has declined substantially in the past year. This can hardly be described as a deterioration in the credit rating of the Government of Canada.
In general, interest rate differentials between government and other securities of the same maturity have reflected the relative demand and supply of funds in particular markets.
The narrowing of the spread between rates on comparable government and corporate debt over the last several months reflects a rise in the volume of government debt marketed relative to that of corporations. This is a necessary concomitant of the deficits that the government currently runs to stimulate the economy. On the other hand, corporations' requirements for funds have recently declined sharply. This is indicative of the general improvement in corporate liquidity positions: undistributed corporate profits rose more than 26 per cent in 1977 over 1976.
In so far as our international credit rating is concerned, the Government of Canada has not itself, of course, raised money outside the country for several years. We anticipate no difficulty whatsoever in doing so now. In fact, we expect that the $750 million U.S. dollar bond issue which we are in the process of arranging will be very favourably received in the international financial market.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Tax free.
Adjournment Debate


Edward C. Lumley: As to the report that a particular Kuwaiti investor has dumped hundreds of millions of Canadian dollars, this is a rumour without basis in fact. A number of stories have circulated in recent weeks that are similarly unfounded. Attempts by the opposition to add to their credence merely serves to increase the tendency to disorder that has arisen in the foreign exchange market from time to time. This is unhelpful to our efforts to preserve orderly market conditions. The recent steps taken by the government have helped to restore some stability to the market.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-AKAMINA-KISHINENA, B.C.- PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on March 9 I addressed a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) dealing with his responsibilities vis-a-vis national parks. My supplementary question was addressed to the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand) dealing with the Canadian Wildlife Service and his responsibility in that context.
My question dealt with a wilderness area adjacent to a federal park, Waterton Lakes National Park. Immediately to the west of that national park is an area that is called the Akamina-Kishinena watershed or wilderness area. This area has been tentatively set aside by the British Columbia government as a wilderness area not yet in the classification of a park. Nevertheless, that is the ultimate aim and objective of the province of British Columbia. That at least has been the indication.
The area now has major infestation of Rocky Mountain pine beetle. It is the desire of the British Columbia forest service to clearcut log that area. 1 can certainly respect their concern and desire to eradicate in that valley the pine beetle and protect the valley from the deprivations of fire once the timber becomes so decadent that it becomes bone dry. I can understand why they want to salvage that timber.
There is another concern. Immediately they enter into that area to log it, they expose it to ready access by the public. They immediately apply a great deal of pressure to the wildlife in that area. It is in that context that I asked the minister to make representation to the province of British Columbia, through the Canadian Wildlife Service and his responsibility to them and their responsibility to him, asking the province to reconsider their decision to allow the forestry department to clearcut that area.
The Canadian Wildlife Service has become involved before in their concern for animals in the national parks, particularly with reference to the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep which was nearly wiped out in Kootenay National Park as a result of a lung worm infection or disease. That was because of lack of forage for the number of sheep present.
The Canadian Wildlife Service has also addressed itself to studies of grizzly. In the Akamina-Kishinena we have an endangered species indeed, the grizzly. We have an even more endangered and rare species called the northern Rocky Moun-

March 13, 1978
Adjournment Debate
tain wolf. That is a very rare animal indeed to be seen in the mountains of southern British Columbia. In addition, there are such game as the Rocky Mountain bighorn, the Rocky Mountain goat, elk and deer. To clearcut that area would create an enormous disruption of the game patterns that move not only in the Akamina-Kishinena, but from that area into Waterton Lakes Park and indeed into the United States and Glacier Park.
I have been assured by Congressman Baucus of Montana of his very real concerns, the concerns of the state of Montana and the federal government of the United States, regarding a proposal to clearcut this area. I am sure we will see a response from the American government expressing their concern and recognizing their limits. They will express their concerns to the province of British Columbia regarding any interference with the wildlife in that area which is so closely associated with and adjacent to Waterton in Glacier National Park.
These animals know no boundary. They move back and forth in these areas, as is their migratory pattern and as the supply of food requires. Recently the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment while in Invermere, B.C. came out four square in opposition to the Kootenay River diversion. This is a provincial proposal. It is part of the Columbia River treaty, but is a responsibility of the provincial government. Yet the minister has taken it upon himself, and I am pleased to see him exercise his concern, to state unequivocally his opposition to the Kootenay River diversion. On a project of such a grand scale, involving such an impact, the minister is prepared to speak; but on an issue of lesser consequence to him, but one which, nevertheless, is of major consequence to many-the protection of wildlife in an area immediately adjacent to and forming part of a national park-we find the minister standing mute or intimating that it is outside the ambit of his responsibility. So also, for that matter, is the Kootenay River diversion project.
I must again ask the Minister of State (Environment) to summon up his courage and write a letter to the minister of forests and to the minister of recreation and conservation in the provincial government and to support his officials in the Canadian Wildlife Service as well as his colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who is responsible for the national parks, letting them know he has a real concern for what is going to happen to the wildlife in the Akamina-Kishinena and asking for their views.


Mike Landers: Mr. Speaker, the whole subject of the Akimena-Kishenena watershed, while one of environmental interest, is primarily a provincial responsibility. However,
because of representations made by the U.S. state department, the government is examining the course of action it should take in the matter.
This triangular tract of British Columbia land wedged between Waterton Lakes National Park and the U.S. border has been found to be infested with the mountain pine beetle and consequently it has been proposed that the diseased lodge pole pines be salvaged. As it stands now, the matter is before the environment and land use committee which is made up of seven B.C. cabinet ministers, including the minister of recreation and conservation. This committee will make the decision on whether or not to accept the recommendation. When made, the decision will be binding.
The minister has confidence in the British Columbia environmental assessment regulations, which he believes to be sufficiently strong, and he is certain the committee will take into account not only the impact on wildlife but the effects on other aspects of the environment.
Fisheries and Environment Canada has noted the following facts about the area in undertaking its Canada land inventory. First, the area has little significance as far as water fowl are concerned. Second, part of the area is an important wintering range for elk. It is anticipated that as long as the land does not erode and some cover remains, these elk can continue in the area. As long as the elk and other small mammals remain, wolves will stay in the area. The same is true of grizzly bears, though they are known to travel long distances in any case.
It is understood that the cutting will be phased-it was already begun some time ago in the Sage Creek area. Cut areas will have time to regenerate before other areas are cut. Thus, wildlife can be accommodated. The opening up of the area to new growth can actually benefit wildlife.
The minister recognizes that the area was designated as a recreational preserve in 1956 and can appreciate the emotional impact of cutting trees there. Even now the Pacific Forest Research Centre of Environment Canada is assisting the B.C. forest service in a search for alternative methods to control the pine beetle. I hope they succeed.
Though I appreciate the hon. member's concern, our course of action cannot be dictated by the immediate need to answer the question. Rather, it must be determined by the long term well-being of our environment, and that will take more time to assess. All I can say now is that we are keeping an eye on the situation.


Robert Hylton Brisco: A good reply!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Tuesday, March 14, 1978