1985-10-04

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, this week Susan Shoes Industries of Hamilton announced that it will be closing its Oakville plant permanently and that it will be laying off 100 employees. The reason for this plant closing is directly linked to the Mulroney Government's failure to state its position on the issue of import quotas. Shoe retailers will not place their orders for shoes because they are waiting to hear on the quota issue.
Once again the Government is called upon to stop playing cat and mouse with the Canadian footwear industry and to start making clear, positive statements ensuring that import quotas will be extended.
The removal of footwear quotas could cost 20,000 Canadian jobs in the footwear and tanning industries. Not only will thousands of Canadians be deprived of their livelihood, but they will also be forced to seek unemployment insurance and welfare assistance.
The Government has launched a so-called discussion with the United States on the issue of free trade, but in the meantime it has left Canadians hanging by footdragging on the issue of the shoe quotas.
A commitment by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) to extend import quotas is essential to ensure that Canadian shoe manufacturers, like Susan Shoes, and, most important, Canadian workers, will have the time necessary for technological adjustment to secure 50 per cent of the market.
Job, jobs, jobs. We are giving the Prime Minister a chance, chance, chance to save 20,000 jobs in the footwear industry, and we call upon him to make his announcement today.


ABORTION
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, once again Dr. Henry Morgantaler is facing the courts because of his attempt to demonstrate that women who so choose should have access to safe, medical abortions through community clinics as well as hospitals.
How long must these trials, appeals and retrials go on before the federal Government accepts that the real issue is not Dr. Henry Morgantaler's clinics but the need for changes to the Criminal Code of Canada? Section 251 must be repealed.
Difficult decisions about unwanted pregnancies must be a personal, not a state matter. Abortion should be a health matter between a woman and her doctor. Further restrictions of access will only lead to backstreet abortions.
Prevention of unwanted pregnancies is far preferable to abortion. Prevention requires reliable, safe birth control methods and comprehensive birth control education.
The Government must reinstate full funding to recognize family planning agencies which provide complete information on all methods of birth control. These agencies are doing research on fertility problems and more reliable birth control methods. Reproductive freedom for women is an integral part of equality. We ask the Government to repeal Section 251 and reinstate adequate funding to family planning organizations.


CHILDREN
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, the Family and Children's Services of Oxford County and I are concerned with the need for urgent action on the Badgley Report and its recommendations. It has been indicated by both the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) that internal discussions and selective consultations are taking place. However, this report was tabled one year ago and few, if any, definitive steps appear to have been taken by the Government to act on the report or its contents. This is a matter which impacts on each and every one of our constituencies.
A community in my own constituency, although a modest size, receives reports of over 60 cases of sexual abuse of children each year. It has been suggested that efforts to protect the civil rights of the perpetrators of such acts may explain the lengthly delay in Government legislation. Surely
7330

October 4, 1985
the rights of those young persons who are the victims should be taken into consideration, and the Government should re-order its priorities in terms of forthcoming legislation to address this concern.
Indeed, the Family and Children Services of Oxford County are concerned that, after a year of internal review, a consultation process was announced providing key professional witnesses with little more than one week of response time. In addition, to have a consultation process that provides only two days in one large centre in any province may well be grossly inadequate.
Fundamental changes to the Criminal Code are urgently needed to ensure the safety and well-being of our young Canadians. We, as Members of Parliament, should be deeply concerned that we have allowed ourselves to live in an atmosphere where child abuse has been implicitly condoned by outdated legislation.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments-and I am sure all my Quebec colleagues in the House will join me-to welcome the new Premier of Quebec, Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson, who took up his duties officially yesterday morning at 11 o'clock, and wish him good luck. He is the twenty-fourth Premier of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, no one can deny the outstanding intellectual qualifications and leadership skills of Mr. Johnson, and his strong personality and capacity for hard work. Today's successor to Rene Levesque is not a newcomer to politics. Mr. Johnson was elected to the National Assembly for the first time in 1976, in the riding of Anjou, and re-elected in 1981. Since then, he has been Minister in a number of important departments, and, until his election as leader, he was Minister of Justice and the Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, the reins of power in Quebec have now been handed over to a man with broad political experience. I am sure he will represent and defend the interests of Quebecers with great dignity like his predecessor. I am sure that like Mr. Levesque, who had agreed to resume a dialogue with our Government, he will continue to work towards national reconciliation, in the best interests of Quebec and Canada.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) informed us yesterday that his Government will be going forward with a sweeping reorganization of the entire Indian Affairs Department. Some sources have suggested that this could mean a reduction of 1,500 jobs.
Yesterday in the House the Minister said that in so far as it relates to gathering the opinions of Indian people, he spent 14 months doing just that, and that he talked to every community.
This morning I spoke with the President of the Union of New Brunswick Indians, and I was informed that they were not consulted and that no other Indian groups from New Brunswick or the other maritime provinces were consulted. Therefore, it is evident that the Minister has not consulted with every Indian community and that, in my opinion, he misled the House.
I wish to remind the Minister that on April 18, in a statement regarding the development of aboriginal policy, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said the following:
Policies regarding aboriginal people will be made after open, public consultation, especially at the grass roots level.
Evidently the directives of the Prime Minister are not being followed. Therefore, I implore the Government to respect its commitment and meet with all aboriginal groups.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the philosophy of the Government that all public inspection and testing services should be carried out by private enterprise continues to get Canada in trouble. Today's case in point is the record of performance testing done on Canada's dairy cattle, known as ROP. The production and butterfat figures have been relied upon for years by foreign buyers in selecting our dairy breeding stock. They used to be an accurate reflection of the productive capabilities of the offspring of test animals.
The private testing program is not working. Samples are no longer tested on site but are carried for several days before the tests are completed. Perhaps the technicians have not yet properly learned their jobs. At any rate, results are extremely erratic, yet these results go on the production record for posterity. There is no notation that the result is probably in error due to testing procedure. The conclusion, therefore, by potential foreign buyers will be simply to avoid Canadian stock.
October 4, 1985

Further damage to our sales reputation must be avoided and corrected. As soon as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) returns from his trip to Russia, he must reverse this dismal decision to privatize ROP testing and get back to a professional program which will reflect the quality of our herds with accuracy. It is in the interest of all Canadians that trade continues in breeding stock. Surely it makes sense that we maintain the high standards needed for it to continue doing so.


EXPORT EARNINGS-SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, few nations in the world are as dependent upon international trade as is Canada. The fact is that out of every dollar we earn in Canada, 30 cents result directly from exports. That figure would be higher if our trade performance were better, because every billion dollars in exports translates into nearly 16,000 jobs. The issue of bilateral trade is about jobs. Trade liberalization would create more jobs on both sides of the border.
Canada's most urgent need is for the creation of more jobs. What the critics of trade liberalization have consistently failed to realize is that Canadian firms and employees had to make even larger adjustments to the Kennedy and Tokyo Rounds of tariff cuts, yet the economy grew and employment increased. I need not emphasize the dramatic effect an additional 16,000 jobs would have on our unemployed. It is time that we gave our unemployed a fair chance.
A study by Queen's University has shown that employment in Canada would rise by 5 per cent because of increased trade access. The status quo is an option that just does not exist for Canada. The negotiated decision to be made by this Government is of the most strategic importance for all Canada. It will be one of the most important means of making the structural changes required for the security of our nation.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate our Government on steps taken to date in correcting a great disservice done to Canadians by the previous Government and its good friends, the NDP.
Although it is generally recognized that there are four fundamental human freedoms, the last Liberal Government saw fit to include only three of them in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The fourth, the right to enjoyment of property, was deliberately excluded from the Charter. This is all the more atrocious when one considers that the right to property was entrenched in the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights, but slashed from the Trudeau Charter of Rights. It is a strange
Oral Questions
kind of Charter that ignores one of the fundamental human freedoms. Also it is a strange kind of Government that would adopt a seriously flawed Charter while proclaiming that Canadians would be forever protected because all their rights were now enshrined.
My hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), informed the House last week that the entrenchment of property rights will be on the agenda for the next meeting of provincial and federal Attorneys General.
The week of October 6 to October 14 is National Private Property Week. During that week Canadians from coast to coast will be honouring their heritage and their property rights. Even more significantly, Canadians will be seeking to preserve their rights to property. It is a week to celebrate property ownership. Our Government has given Canadians further cause to celebrate by initiating the process of entrenching property rights in the Charter.
[DOT] (MIS)
I applaud that action. I urge our Government and the Governments of all provinces to support this initiative so that our Charter will be complete and the rights of all Canadians will be protected.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to direct my question to the Prime Minister, but in his absence, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister might wish to reply.
Yesterday in the House, the Minister of State for Transport said that the documents connected with her two trips to Europe were available. Last night, she said the following in Montreal: "I was prepared to produce all the receipts, but the Deputy Prime Minister suggested I do nothing of the kind, pointing out that it would create a dangerous precedent".
It is bad enough that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the National Director of the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Lampert, and the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte have been ordered to remain silent, without the Deputy Prime Minister advising the Minister of State for Transport to do likewise. My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister: What is his justification for preventing the Minister of State for Transport from tabling documents when she is actually willing to do so?

October 4, 1985
Oral Questions


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Hon. Member is quoting from, if anything at all. The public has the right to know. The public-


Mr. Gauthier:: The truth; the truth.


Erik Nielsen: The truth will be more often heard from this side than from that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are answering a question.


Erik Nielsen: The public has a right to know how its tax dollars are spent and there are processes that are well established, and have been for many years, to bring forward that information.


Mr. Deans:: It has not been proven conclusively, but nevertheless-


Erik Nielsen: With respect to the private and personal expenses of any Hon. Member of this House I would suggest that that would not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Certainly any expenses made with respect to public taxpayers' dollars should and are available for scrutiny.


DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, it is strange that the Deputy Prime Minister does not realize that what we are talking about are public funds also. He just said to us that the public has a right to know, and we agree with that. How can he advise the Minister of State for Transport, as she said yesterday in Montreal, that it would be a dangerous precedent to table the documents that she is willing, according to what she says, to table in this House?


Erik Nielsen: In order to give the question any validity at all, Sir, one must accept the accuracy and truthfulness of the preamble, which I do not. I have just finished saying that public funds are at all times subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. That is what this place is all about. What we are speaking about are journeys that were made partially on Government business and partially for personal and private purposes. The Minister has explained that she has paid personally all of those expenses associated with the personal and private part of those travels, and that should be sufficient for any Hon. Member of this House.
With respect to the public portions of those journeys and the expenses related thereto, they should be and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way through the structures we have in place for that purpose.
[ Translation]


REQUEST THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS OF MINISTER OF STATE (TRANSPORT) BE TABLED
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, by gagging the Minister of State for Transport, the Deputy Prime Minister may well give the impression that Cabinet Ministers are putting their noses in the trough. I do not know whether she realizes the consequences of her actions.
To be certain there was no abuse of public funds, we would like the Minister of State for Transport to table the documents which she is, in fact, quite willing to table. Is the Deputy Prime Minister willing to take the gag off the Minister of State for Transport?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, for the Hon. Member to suggest, which he has, that I put a gag order on that particular Minister or any other Minister is utterly false. I hope that the matter rests there.


Mr. Broadbent:: Oh, another correction.


Erik Nielsen: It is not, as the Leader of the NDP has just heckled across the floor, another correction. 1 have always stood for that principle in my 28 years here and will continue to stand by the principle that the whole purpose of this place is the management of taxpayers' dollars.
The Hon. Member knows as well as I that the Estimates examination will provide a full opportunity for questioning on this or any other matter with respect to the administration of Ministers' offices. He knows that, and all Hon. Members should know that.


ALLEGATIONS OF MINISTER OF STATE (TRANSPORT)- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Transport, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It is very simple: considering that the Minister of State for Transport herself said she is quite prepared to produce vouchers, and that the Deputy Prime Minister is saying that it is not so, can he tell us simply who is telling the truth, he or the Minister of State for Transport?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, when I hear a question accompanied by a preamble like that, I ask myself what is the truth in the preamble and its origination and the question itself. I think I am justified in asking that kind of question when looking at the quality of the question.


Ian Deans: And what do you answer yourself?
October 4, 1985


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member is a new Member but he has been here a year. He should know that there are Standing Committees of the House that are authorized-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Don't lecture, Erik, for God's sake. You are the worst offender.


Erik Nielsen: -that are authorized-the opposition Whip tells me not to lecture. Let them not lecture by way of smuggling lectures into the preambles to their questions and their questions.


REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF COST
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on the "April in Paris" matter. The Deputy Prime Minister tells us that in the case of the first trip, the Paris and Stockholm trip, the Minister has paid a portion of that cost. If such is the case, and in view of the fact that the original meaning of the trip had been completely cancelled by the time the trip occurred as the conference was no longer to take place, can the Deputy Prime Minister give his own personal assurance to the House that the total cost of the first trip, including the cost to fly an aide there two days ahead of time to identify the Minister, will be reimbursed to the taxpayers of Canada by the Minister in question?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, again one would have to accept the honesty and truthfulness of the preamble and the pseudofacts that have been smuggled into that question. I can tell the Hon. Member that they are absolutely false and I do not know why he and others continue to propagate that canard. It is probably on the basis of the article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen written by one whom I regarded at one time as having some professional integrity, but after having read the column and the article that appeared in that newspaper yesterday and seeing the manner in which it was followed up today, I asked myself whether the motivation was not to arouse some kind of racism here, something which I think


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -which I-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Explain!


Erik Nielsen: -which I-


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Erik Nielsen: -which I think is most regrettable. 1 will not withdraw a personal view which I hold. I agree with him; it is quite shameful for a professional to embark on that kind of course.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT TRAVEL DOCUMENTS BE TABLED
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, if a Minister is incompetent, she is incompetent. She is incompetent in both French and English. Suggestions of racism are totally inappropriate in the context of this question.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You are unilingually incompetent.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who has said that Canadian taxpayers have a right to know how public tax dollars are being spent. In that context, are the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of State for Transport prepared to table forthwith in this House all documents relating to the public expenditures by the Minister of State for Transport with respect to the two trips in question to Europe, including not just her own expenditures but any expenditures relating to her Chief of Staff and anyone accompanying her Chief of Staff?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been around here long enough to know that he and other Members of this House have the absolute right to ask for that type of information during the examination of the Estimates in committee. That is the place to do it.


John Edward Broadbent: Good luck!


Erik Nielsen: That is where the information will be forthcoming.
There is another method, in case the Hon. Member has overlooked it, which is to place the appropriate question on the Order Paper where it will be answered-


Mr. Rodriguez:: It will never be answered.


Erik Nielsen: -and answered with alacrity.
With respect to the over-all question of that travel and those accompanying, the Hon. Member will be glad to know that i have had a comparison done with respect to the use of aircraft in the final year of the administration of the last Liberal Government and this one-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Erik Nielsen: -and travel is down in terms of hours by 21.3 per cent. In terms of the frequency of trips, it is down by 37.5 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXAMINATION OF ESTIMATES
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the place for the Government to answer for possible abuse of taxpayers' funds is right here in this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 4, 1985
Oral Questions


Svend Johannes Robinson: -and not in committees of this House six months later.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You ought to be here more often.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a specific question. Is the Deputy Prime Minister suggesting to this House and to the taxpayers of Canada that we have to wait several months before we can raise this question in a committee, as opposed to obtaining this information today, as taxpayers are entitled to know whether or not there has been abuse by high-flying Ministers junketing around Europe at taxpayers' expense?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to forget that standing committees of this House are part of this House.


John R. Rodriguez: So is Question Period.


Erik Nielsen: That is where Estimates are examined and that is where the fullest possible information is given. Certainly more information has been given in the last year than was given during the collective years of the previous administration.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: That openess will continue and all of that information will be produced with respect to the management
of taxpayers' funds.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I must say that in my eight years in political activity I have never seen the-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order, order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -question of racism raised in a way which is as despicable and as insidious as what we saw today by the Deputy Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Question, if you have a question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Can he explain the sexist hypocrisy of his Government when, on the one hand, his Government is denying the right to women on military bases to organize a dental plan-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could we have a question from the Hon. Member, please?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am asking the Minister to explain the sexist hypocrisy when, on the one hand, the Government refuses the women the right to organize with respect to a dental plan and, on the other hand, it funds the United Services Institute of current and former military officers to lobby the Government on issues such as defence, external affairs, and women's equality issues.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on every base or station in Canada there are Married Quarters Community Councils which have, under orders, to provide specifically a forum for the points of view of men, women and youth, and to address such problems related to social, fiscal, cultural and welfare interests of all members of the base. The activities of this group are in part funded. Although not a line item, its operations are supported by the military budget. And the purpose of those organizations is to look after the welfare of all members living in married quarters. So we do support them.
If the Hon. Member has suggestions as to how this could be improved to benefit the people who live on military bases, I would be delighted to hear them-


Ian Deans: Give them the same rights as everyone else.


Harvie Andre: -because I can assure the Hon. Member that I, the military, and this Government want to ensure that our military is the best treated military there is.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, this morning on Canada A.M., the self-same Associate Minister said that he was concerned that groups of this nature might get involved in issues like star wars and other issues. Is he aware of the fact that the Government-funded United Services Institute is currently involved on the bases in support of such apolitical issues as star wars and South Africa's oppression in Namibia? Has the time not come for a full investigation into the Government's selective use and memory when it comes to political prohibition on the bases?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of that information. I have stated in this House that political activity on military bases is, in my opinion, wrong.


Ian Deans: Why?


Harvie Andre: The question has come up-


Ian Deans: Why?


Harvie Andre: For all kinds of obvious reasons.


Ian Deans: Why?
October 4, 1985


Harvie Andre: Questions have come up as to what would be appropriate political activity and could we have an organization on the military base demanding that Canada introduce nuclear weapons-


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: We've got one.


Harvie Andre: -and could we have an organization on a military base demanding that Canada participate in SDI. Those kinds of things would be wrong.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: It's a free country, or used to be.


Harvie Andre: If the Hon. Members would listen to the answer, as I have indicated, a question has arisen as to what are appropriate levels of political activity. For that reason I asked the Department last week to examine this question to see if our definitions-the definitions I inherited from the Government the Hon. Member supported-are appropriate in today's world. If not, they will be amended.
In the meantime, I invite the Hon. Member and anyone else who has an interest to forward their suggestions on how this might be handled. I am open to suggestions. For the first time this morning the president of that group contacted me. We are going to meet next week to discuss this and other important questions. And if we stop being too shrill, I am sure we can reach a satisfactory conclusion-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS DEPOSITORS COMPENSATION ACT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Just a moment ago we heard the Deputy Prime Minister say-and 1 am pretty sure I got his words down correctly-that "Any spending of taxpayers' money means also that the taxpayers have a right to know where that goes".
Considering that the Government introduced a Bill yesterday which is going to transfer some $875 million from the pockets of some taxpayers not only to the pockets of other taxpayers but to the pockets of foreign banks, will the Minister explain to the House why she does not believe the taxpayers of Canada have the right to know precisely where that money is going? And if she does, why is it not included in the Bill?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It's a matter before the House now.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated previously to the Hon. Member, who has been nagging me quite consistently on this topic-


John Edward Broadbent: Nagging you, yes, and you're going to get more.
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: -that I am prepared to release a list of categories-


Ian Deans: No; names!


Barbara Jean McDougall: -for this House to look at. I have also indicated that I am prepared to provide a list to the Commission of Inquiry and place it in the hands of Mr. Justice Estey for his consideration of this very topic.


RECIPIENTS OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we in this House were rushed last March with a Bill which is going to cost the taxpayers $1 billion because the Government did not at that point take the time to think through carefully what it was doing. We in this Party are not going to stand by and let that happen again. The Minister is going to have the debate of her life.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are always against western Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Does the Minister, who is sitting there smiling about spending this $875 million, think it is enough to say that some of it is going to foreign banks, some of it is going to chartered banks, and some of it is going to brokerage firms?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: And credit unions.


John Edward Broadbent: Does she not think that the people of Canada have a right to know about everyone who is getting money from other taxpayers? That's the issue.


Barbara Jean McDougall: It
will also show, Mr. Speaker, that some of the money is going to credit unions and municipalities and some of the money is going to small business people. I would have thought the Hon. Member might have had some interest in that.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we want to know.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF LIST
John Edward Broadbent: It is the case under the Bankruptcy Act that if someone claims money in a bankruptcy, as the Minister well knows, they have to submit their name in order to get that money. We are quite happy to get the list of credit unions and everyone else, but will the Minister give us that list? Will she come clean now about the $1 billion of the taxpayers' money which she wants to spend?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated what I am prepared to give to this House.


John R. Rodriguez: It's not enough.


Barbara Jean McDougall: I have also indicated, I think in quite a reasonable way, that I am prepared to put the list before the Commission of Inquiry-

October 4, 1985
Oral Questions


John R. Rodriguez: Let's get all the facts.


Barbara Jean McDougall: -and have Mr. Justice Estey reach a decision on what I regard as a matter of principle-


John R. Rodriguez: What are you covering up?


Barbara Jean McDougall: -which is not clear within the law.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In order to remove the cloud of doubt which still hangs over the Government's handling of the Lampert affair, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House the names of all of the individuals whom Mr. Lampert notified about the clarification the chief electoral officer was seeking about the election returns of the Hon. Member for Frontenac?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair does not believe that the question as asked deals with Government policy. I will give the opportunity to the Hon. Member for Windsor West to rephrase the question.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have not referred to anything other than the Deputy Prime Minister and I am asking him to provide information. May I respectfully rephrase the question and we'll see what the answer is.
I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to tell us the names of all the individuals whom the executive director of the Conservative Party said he notified about the activities of the former Minister of Communications with reference to his election expenses? And were any of those individuals, in particular, in his office or in the Prime Minister's Office?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has some difficulty because, according to the Chair, the question does not deal with any administrative responsibility. The Chair believes it is strictly a Party matter. So for the last time I invite the Hon. Member to rephrase the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair understands what the Hon. Member is getting at, but the way the question is asked, the Chair does not believe it deals with any administrative responsibility of the Government. There is no mention of anyone in the Government.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I made no reference to any Party matter. I am asking a question of the Deputy Prime Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -and, Mr. Speaker, if the Government has nothing to hide and if it does not want to appear to be participating in a cover-up, the Deputy Prime Minister will get up and give me the information I seek, otherwise the people of Canada will draw their own conclusions that the Government has something to hide and is engaging in a cover-up.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister give me that information or not?


Erik Nielsen: There is no problem, Mr. Speaker. Ordinarily, I would not bother to reply to such a question because it does indeed pertain to internal Party matters and I would not expect the Liberal Party to make that kind of disclosure to me. But we have, as a matter of fact. If the Hon. Member will look carefully at the press release and accompanying documents which were released yesterday, he will see that attached thereto is the letter from Mr. Lampert to Mr. Masse dated June 14, which indicates at the bottom of its page three Party officials to whom the letter was directed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister is so full of obfuscation and evasion-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -that I have to ponder a bit in phrasing my supplementary question.


Ian Deans: Why are you insisting that he ask a supplementary question?


NAMING OF INDIVIDUALS NOTIFIED
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister himself, in answering the question, has referred to a letter in the context of his duties as Deputy Prime Minister, and in view of the fact that the question can well pertain to personnel in the Prime Minister's Office and in the Deputy Prime Minister's office, which are within the administrative responsibility of the Government, will he give us names? If he will not give us names, I suggest that the people of Canada will believe that he is engaging in a cover-up. Give us the names.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, let me relieve the Hon. Member's difficulty with obfuscation and read to him what has been made public, and which he could have read himself. At the bottom of the letter to which I referred in my previous answer, there appear, in bold type, the names: Jean Guil-beault, Don Oliver, and Gisele Morgan. That is the answer to his question. It is in the public domain.
October 4, 1985


BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance and has to do with a matter of principle.
Does the Minister endorse the principle expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister, namely that taxpayers have the right to know where and to whom their money is going? Does she subscribe to the Bankruptcy Act principle whereby, in cases of bankruptcies, the names of compensated creditors ought to be made public? If so, why would this Bill throw a veil of secrecy over the names of companies which stand to get $875 million of the taxpayers' money?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, by agreeing to the kinds of categories and the very fine breakdown I have offered to provide the Opposition 1 am meeting that principle wholeheartedly. The intent of the Bank Act is that the names of individual depositors, small business people, cultural organizations and the kinds of people who keep bank accounts, not be made public.


John R. Rodriguez: We have never bailed out a bank before.


Barbara Jean McDougall: The intent of the Bank Act is that those names-


John R. Rodriguez: Change the Act.


Barbara Jean McDougall: -stay private. Until that is clarified for me in a court of law I intend to stand by that principle.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this is a unique situation and the Minister does not seem to understand that we are being asked as taxpayers to pay $875 million to certain companies and institutions which, according to her, will be nameless. The Government of Canada rules require that anyone who gets a payment of more than $30,000 or $40,000 from the Government has to be named in the Public Accounts of Canada. Why the double standard when it comes to the depositors of this bank?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to answer the Hon. Member regarding double standards and principles. I have stated what my principle is and it is based on the intent of the Bank Act and how I view my responsibilities. I have indicated that I am prepared to table a very fine breakdown of categories which I think will meet the Hon. Member's demands. Until the position is clarified by a court I stand by the privacy provisions-
Oral Questions


John R. Rodriguez: We won't give you the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Michael Morris Cassidy: We are going to oppose this, you know, because of that fact.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Try and get the Bill through the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are entitled to debate the issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could we please allow the Minister to complete her answer?


Mr. Dick:: Is that a threat, Ed?


Barbara Jean McDougall: I stand by the principle of privacy for depositors in this country, large and small, in financial institutions unless I can clarify the legal position in some other way.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants has conducted a study called Accounting and Financial Reporting by Agricultural Producers. According to the Institute there is a diversity of accounting principles and practices as well as a complete lack of understanding by farmers of the objectives of accounting and financial reporting. They advance many theories in their draft to address the apparent lack of sophistication on the part of agricultural producers. The main objective, however, seems to be to force farmers to use the accrual method in reporting income.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Can the Hon. Member put a question, please?


William (Bill) Gottselig: Do you support the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member conclude his question, please?


William (Bill) Gottselig: Is the Minister's Department aware of this study and does he support the recommendations of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to tell my colleague that in fact I have not had this study brought to my attention. It may be that it involves a question of tax policy. I will undertake to the Hon. Member and the House to consult with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, ascertain in what category this question should be, and either he or I will get back to the Hon. Member.
October 4, 1985

Oral Questions POLITICAL PARTIES


PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY-NATIONAL DIRECTOR'S NOTIFICATION OF ELECTION EXPENSE INQUIRY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the answers regarding the Lampert business this morning, I have sadly come to the conclusion-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -that when the Prime Minister says he is a man of unimpeachable integrity, there is some truth in that. He is unimpeachable.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Brian Vincent Tobin: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is he prepared to make available to the House the names of those people who work for the Government as ministerial exempt staff, or in other positions, and were contacted by Mr. Lampert regarding the Masse affair?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, all of the facts, Sir, are disclosed in the public press release and I am sure the Hon. Member has read it. It clearly states those senior officials whom I have had to identify by reading their names because of the inability of his own House Leader to read the facts. Those are the senior officials of the Party who were advised by Mr. Lampert.


Brian Vincent Tobin: In listening to these answers, I come to the conclusion that the Government needs a choirmaster and we need a riddle master to try to make some sense in this place.


DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have a very straightforward question. The Prime Minister is now telling Members of the House, despite the incredible spectacle of people swallowing themselves whole this last week, that Mr. Lampert did not speak to any member of the Government or any-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could the Hon. Member please ask the question now?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Nor did he speak to any member of the Minister's exempt staff regarding this matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Come on!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Is that what the Prime Minister is telling this House? He spoke to no one but Party officials?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am not telling the Member any such thing. Mr. Lampert has said precisely that in his letter. It seems to me that if that Hon. Member particularly, and others in that Party, are going to whine, they should whine about something important.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS DEPOSITORS COMPENSATION ACT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. A Commission of Inquiry has absolutely no authority or jurisdiction over the Bill which will ultimately, I assume, pay money in excess of the deposit insurance limits to depositors of the CCB and Northland banks. Given that, will the Minister recognize that this is an unprecedented action by the Government dealing with an unprecedented situation in Canada? Will she agree that a change must be made to the Bill we now have before us stipulating that those who wish to claim compensation from the Government must have their names made public, and that would be an appropriate thing to do given that the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that any Government monies paid out to any individual ought to be made public?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to make clear to the Hon. Member where I stand on this issue in providing the categories which I think will give the Hon. Member far more information than is essential. This situation is not unprecedented. Uninsured depositors have been paid before by this House and in that sense it is not unprecedented. What is important is that there is in the Bank Act an intent which I stand by, that of the right to privacy of depositors in financial institutions. I have made that as clear as I possibly can. I am sure the debate will rage on, but I have made my position clear.


REQUEST THAT LIST BE PUBLISHED
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says she stands by the provisions of the Bank Act. We stand by the provision that the depositors are entitled to $60,000 as insured. Now that we are changing the rules of the game, why do we not require that those people who want more than they are entitled to under the insurance program be treated like all other creditors in bankruptcies and list themselves for payment and accept the fact that their names will become public?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is at his best when he shouts. I have made my position-


Ian Deans: It is such a stupid position that you are taking.


Barbara Jean McDougall: -clear time after time.


John Edward Broadbent: It is the wrong position.


Barbara Jean McDougall: I have tried to tell the House that I will provide it with the necessary information to satisfy the taxpayers' needs. In the meantime, I stand by the depositors who put their money into financial institutions-
October 4, 1985


Ian Deans: Then give them the $60,000.


Barbara Jean McDougall: -on a confidential basis.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the tremendous hardship many older unemployed people face, will the Minister tell the House what provisions in the Canadian Jobs Strategy will directly benefit unemployed people over the age of 50?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Jobs Strategy is designed to meet the needs of those who are most in need, particularly older workers.
For example, in the job development program, long-term unemployed-many of whom are older workers-will be given training and employment opportunities in fields where they have not had any previous expertise. In the job re-entry program, women who have been out of the workforce for a number of years will be given on-site and in-class training in fields where they have not worked before.
The reason is that this will provide older workers with opportunities to take part in the economic growth which is occurring in this country as evidenced in the 4 per cent increase in the Gross National Product, by the decline in the bank rate to less than 9 per cent for the first time in seven years, and as evidenced by the fact that 300,000 new jobs have been created.


FISHERIES
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The business plan of Fisheries Products International is unacceptable. It will displace many workers and threaten communities in Newfoundland. Second, it is causing havoc for workers and industries in the Province of Nova Scotia.
Will the Minister explain to the House why he acted so insensitively to those workers in Newfoundland and why he has acted so insensitively to the representations made by the Minister of Fisheries from Nova Scotia who said that this announcement is both stupid and insensitive?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what information the Hon. Member has upon which to base the declaration
Oral Questions
that the plan that has been announced is insensitive to the needs of Newfoundland. That plan has had the endorsement and wholehearted support of the Government of Newfoundland. That five-year plan is intended to revitalize the deep-sea fishery of that province and, in the long run, result in a very much improved industry with more jobs and more security for the fishermen of Newfoundland.


David Charles Dingwall: I say it is insensitive because it will close 15 plants in the Province of Newfoundland.


GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. For his edification, the Minister of Fisheries in Nova Scotia stated: "It is difficult for us to fathom the insensitivity of the Governments of Newfoundland and Canada in taking such a step in the middle of a countervail action".
Will the Acting Minister of Fisheries explain why he has acted so negligently on behalf of the workers of Newfoundland and workers and fishermen in the Province of Nova Scotia?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we do not believe that the Government has acted insensitively at all. In approving as it did, with the Government of Newfoundland, the new five-year plan for F.P.I, the Government has embarked on a program which will revitalize the deep-sea fishery for Newfoundland and which will have nothing but long-range and short-range benefits for the industry. I would think that the Hon. Member would be grateful for the kind of action that has been taken here, rather than being critical of it.


FINANCE
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of State for Finance. Now that the official Bank of Canada rate has dropped below 9 per cent and the basic bank loan rate is still 10.25 per cent, can the Minister of State tell the House what measures she is prepared to take to reduce the abnormal 1.25 per cent gap which now benefits the banks?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to inform the Hon. Member who is a little bit behind, that one leading bank has announced that it is reducing its prime rate to 10 per cent as of Monday, which is once again the lowest interest rate level that we have seen in the prime rate since 1978.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 4, 1985
Oral Questions


John Edmund Parry: I am delighted that one Member is a little faster in getting her news than the Prime Minister, who gets it from the TV networks.


INTEREST RATE LEVELS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, what about the other banks and what about the fact that the last time the Bank of Canada prime rate interest level was 9 per cent, the spread was only three-quarters of a per cent?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member should be delighted, as we are, that the interest rate levels in this country are going down. I am sure that the banks, which compete with each other, will reduce their rates accordingly. That will be a decision of the market-place.
However, the Hon. Member should simply be pleased that the people of Canada are paying less interest now than they were a year ago.

[ Translation]


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance and concerns the failure of the two Canadian banks.
As we have mentioned on several occasions, the Government gave the Northland Bank the kiss of death on the first of September when it associated it with the Canadian Commercial Bank in its liquidation request.
I would like to ask the Minister of State, considering that the Northland Bank has decided to sue and challenge the bank's liquidation in the courts, whether the Government intends to fight this challenge by the Northland Bank's management?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the liquidation is coming before the courts in Manitoba today, I believe. I think it would be most inappropriate for me to comment on speculation of what the action of the Northland Bank may or may not be.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL OPPOSE NORTHLAND BANK APPLICATION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, that is not at all what I asked the Minister. I asked whether her Government intended to fight this challenge by the Northland Bank-I am not asking you to make the decision for the
judge-I was asking whether the Government was going to fight the request that is to be submitted by the Northland Bank in court.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is a hypothetical question. We do not even know that it is going to happen. It is in the court room even as we speak. What is the Hon. Member asking me to do? I do not understand.


INQUIRY WHETHER DEPARTMENT WILL OPPOSE NORTHLAND BANK APPLICATION
Raymond Garneau: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The Northland Bank has gone to court to ask for the liquidation order that was sought by the Government to be declared null and void. I am asking the Minister whether there are any officials, any lawyers in her department who are going to challenge this request by the Bank. It is quite simple.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is quite simple indeed.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this is being played out in a court room and 1 find this line of questioning totally hypothetical.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. As he undoubtedly knows, on August 29 more than 800 Honduran soldiers raided Colomoncagua, a camp in Honduras holding thousands of Salvadoran refugees. They kidnapped 10 and beat, raped or killed others in this camp. For years, Honduras has threatened to send these refugees back by force to the land they fled.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of Canada, direct our officers in Honduras to offer sanctuary to those 10 who have been kidnapped and ask that they be released for that purpose?


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that this matter is receiving urgent attention. Immigration officials were scheduled to be on the site yesterday. I am expecting a report and I will get back to the Hon. Member as soon as I have that information.
October 4, 1985


CANADIAN AID TO HONDURAS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence. Since he knows that this refugee camp is also on the potential invasion route by which Honduran, Salvadoran or U.S. forces may invade El Salvador to attack the FMLN in the rear, will the Minister remind Honduras of Canada's very generous CIDA aid and request that they assure us that the Salvadorans who have been kidnapped will be released and there will be no invasion of the FMLN in El Salvador through Honduran territory?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, 1 just came back from the U.N. General Assembly, where I had a chance to talk to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Honduras. We discussed this subject which is one of mutual concern, and I can assure the Hon. Member that CIDA and the Department of External Affairs are continuing negotiations and keeping in touch with our embassy in Guatemala. We are monitoring the situation very closely.


CLERK OF PETITIONS REPORTS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, October 3, 1985, meet the requirements of Standings Orders as to form.

One of the petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has received two notices of questions of privilege. In the order they were received, the first one is from the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to a serious matter flowing from questions asked today of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) concerning certain allegations with respect to the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier).
The reply of the Deputy Prime Minister was in breach of the rules of order of this House, specifically Beauchesne's Citation
Privilege-Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)
319(3). This citation makes it very clear that it is improper to impute in the House of Commons to any Member or Members unworthy motives for their actions in a particular case.
The offensive and totally unacceptable suggestion by the Deputy Prime Minister that questions with respect to the conduct of the Minister of State for Transport were in some way motivated by a concern about the fact that she was a francophone Minister are unworthy of this House, and unworthy of the Deputy Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: In addition to being unworthy of the Deputy Prime Minister, they are also clearly in breach of the rules of order of this House. The Deputy Prime Minister clearly suggested, in echoing the suggestions made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on other occasions, that Members in this House who have questioned the improper conduct of the Minister of State for Transport were motivated by "racism", which was the word he used.

Mr. Speaker, all I want to say is that a Minister who wastes taxpayers' money is incompetent, whether she speaks French or English.
Mr. Speaker, I urge you to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw his allegations which are totally unacceptable to the House.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept for a moment the twists and distortions which the Hon. Member has placed on my words-


John R. Rodriguez: It is not a twist. You said it, brother.


Erik Nielsen: -all of which is absolutely and utterly false and unworthy of him in even making the suggestion.
With respect to my reference in Question Period, if the Hon. Member had read the article by the journalist concerned, he would know that that was its subject matter. It has he, the journalist, who raised it in the first instance, not me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) on the same question of privilege.


Jacques Guilbault: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the notice I had given you concerns the same matter and I suppose it might be considered now so we might avoid raising two different questions of privilege.
Mr. Speaker, we are outraged that the Deputy Prime Minister would accuse the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) of racism because he asks questions concerning the expenses incurred by the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier).

October 4, 1985
Petitions
Those accusations are extremely serious and unacceptable to the House, and we do not intend to let it go unchallenged.
However 1 must admit that it is always difficult to decipher the convoluted remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister, so we will wait for the blues to find out exactly what he said.
I take the floor at this time to ask Your Honour to reserve our right to rise on a question of privilege after we have had an opportunity to examine the blues and determine the exact nature of the accusations of racism made by the Deputy Prime Minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will read the record of Question Period. If I find that the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault)-

-and the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guibault) at that time ... Should the Chair deem it necessary to intervene it will do so early next week.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 70(16), I am pleased to table in both official languages the Government's response to the third report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Emply-ment and Immigration pertaining to business immigrants.


PETITIONS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. It involves members from Toronto, Mississauga, Rexdale, Sudbury, Burlington, Windsor, Orillia, Midland, Stroud, Brampton and Bramalea.
The petition is signed by hundreds of members of the retail United Food and Commercial Workers Union which calls on the Government and on Parliament to ensure that all retired employees keep their pension benefits and receive their unemployment insurance benefits without deduction of pension income.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition to present from Essex County and Windsor criticizing strongly the Government's intentions to decrease the indexation for family allowances and suggesting that this represents an inequitable approach to the tax system in view of the other benefits being given to upper income people in the tax changes in the May Budget.

[ Translation]


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 376 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 376 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Angus: As of April 1, 1985, what was the name, law firm and community of all federally appointed prosecutors?
Return tabled.


Mr. Nunziata:: With respect to questions on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary on several occasions to give me some indication when Question No. 296 concerning the Richard Hatfield marijuana case might be answered in the House of Commons. It has been some six months now since the questions have been put on the Order Paper.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You should have been here before.


John V. Nunziata: The Parliamentary Secretary gave his undertaking in the House that he would consult with the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) and give us some indication as to when these questions might be answered.
I would like to put the question to the Parliamentary Secretary or to the Solicitor General to give us a clear indication when those questions might be answered.
If those questions are not answered in a reasonable period of time-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.
October 4, 1985


John V. Nunziata: -unanimous consent may not be given in future to have the remaining questions stood.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Threats.


Mr. Beatty:: By golly, Mr. Speaker, he is as scrappy as the old devil today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Since the Hon. Member raised this question a week or so ago, 1 have had a chance to see what the status is because I certainly do have an obligation to all Hon. Members who put questions on the Order Paper to respond to them as quickly as possible. Indeed I will do that with Question No. 296.
However, I think it is appropriate to point out to the House that Question No. 296 has some 40 parts and some 180 or so subparts. The person who was counting them lost track after 180. The question is shared by the Department of the Solicitor General and five other Departments, some of which have little involvement in it. We have been able to obtain answers from two of the six Departments. The Departments involved are Agriculture, Employment and Immigration, Justice, Solicitor General, Transport Canada and the PMO.
We will do everything humanly possible to get the information as soon as possible for my hon. colleague. I appreciate his patience.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, why has it taken six months to answer these questions? Is the Solicitor General prepared to table the answers to the questions which have already been dealt with in the House immediately, rather than wait for the answers to all the questions?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it takes longer to answer a 180-part question than it does to draft one. What we have to do is to contract five or six Departments to obtain all the information. If they had been separate questions and each of them had referred to a separate Department, we could have easily abided by the requests of the hon. gentleman and responded specifically, Department by Department. However, because the question itself cuts across several Departments, we are trying to pull all the requested information together and answer it as quickly as possible. Again I undertake to do that at the earliest opportunity.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
______________________________________7343
Toronto Island Airport



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-76, an Act respecting the operation of the Toronto Island Airport by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it appears to be my lucky day.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is our lucky day.


Henry Perrin Beatty: As the Government House Leader says as he leaves, it is our lucky day.
I want to make a few brief comments in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) with regard to Bill C-76.

Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Island Airport is located in the Toronto Harbour area, about two miles from City Hall, on a property owned by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, the City of Toronto and the federal Government. It has been designated as an airport to relieve pressure on Pearson International Airport. It serves a large general aviation community and a number of commercial aviation enterprises. It is also a STOL terminal for DASH-7 and DASH-8 aircraft.

In 1984-85, traffic at Toronto Island Airport reached over
156.000	aircraft movements and approximately 47,000 passengers. By the end of the decade, it is forecast that these figures will increase to about 200,000 aircraft movements and over
200.000	passengers. It was in recognition of the importance of Toronto Island Airport to the Toronto area aviation system that the federal Government entered into a 50-year lease agreement in June, 1983, with the City of Toronto and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners. In signing this lease agreement, the federal Government has ensured that the Toronto Island Airport will continue as an important airport in the Toronto area for general aviation and STOL services.
By way of background for the proposed amendments, I might say that Toronto Island Airport, until June 30, 1983, was operated under a lease agreement between the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the City of Toronto. That lease expired on June 30, 1983, and in the absence of a new agreement, the Island Airport could have closed, causing severe congestion problems for other airports in the Toronto area, particularly for Pearson International.
Negotiations for a new agreement for the airport were long and protracted, primarily because of the environmental concerns of the City of Toronto with respect to air operations that would be allowed at the airport. Through the patience and understanding of all parties, a new lease was successfully

October 4, 1985
Toronto Island Airport
negotiated with ensured continued use of the site for airport purposes. However, it contains certain conditions which were requested by the city to address its environmental concerns with respect to operations at the airport and a need to preserve the integrity of neighbouring parkland. The former Minister of Transport, on behalf of the federal Government, agreed to recommend to Parliament amendments to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act to give effect to these conditions. Specifically, the city insisted that all jet aircraft and aircraft generating excessive noise, as defined in the lease, be prohibited from operating at the airport as a prerequisite to the city agreeing to enter into a long-term lease.
The amendments before the House are designed to provide statutory authority to allow the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to make by-laws to prohibit jet-powered aircraft and aircraft generating excessive noise, as defined in the lease, from operating at the airport, and will provide for a maximum fine of $25,000 upon summary conviction for owners of prohibited aircraft who use such aircraft at the airport.
It should be noted that although the proposed amendments appear to give discretionary power to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to make the by-laws which I mentioned previously, under terms of the lease arrangement for Toronto Island Airport, the operator of the airport is obligated under Section 15(2) of the lease to make these by-laws and to enforce them strictly.
A further amendment requested by the City of Toronto concerning the operation of the airport is also addressed in the Bill. At the present time, under Section 7 of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act, 1911, the Island Airport is operated by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners on behalf of the City of Toronto. The city no longer wishes to be involved in the operation of the airport and wants to be indemnified against any financial or legal liability for the airport. Accordingly, an amendment is proposed to allow the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to operate the airport on its own behalf or, following agreement between the commissioners and the Minister of Transport, on behalf of Transport Canada.
It is intended that the Toronto Harbour Commissioners would in future operate the airport on behalf of Transport Canada. This would not increase federal Government expenditures because Transport Canada already funds all operating deficits and capital expenditures incurred by the Island Airport. In 1984, for example, the operating subsidy provided by the federal Government was about $475,000.
An additional amendment is also proposed concerning the appointment of commissioners by the City of Toronto to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners. Currently the city appoints three of the five members to the commission. The federal Government appoints the two other members, one being on the recommendation of the Metro Toronto Board of Trade. At present, the city appointments require nomination by the city's executive committee. The amendment will allow for members to be appointed by the majority of the Toronto City Council, without nomination by the executive committee. This amendment will bring the city's commissioner appointment process
into line with city appointments for other agencies and commissions.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of these amendments is to make the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In concluding, I would like to point out that these amendments are being proposed in order to fulfil the federal Government's obligation under the lease for the Toronto Island Airport. The amendments are fundamental to the implementation of the specific terms of the lease, were prepared in consultation with the City of Toronto and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, and have their support.
Signing a long-term lease ensures the continued use of the airport for general aviation and STOL operations. In turn, these operations benefit users of the air transportation network of Southern Ontario. Furthermore, they have and will continue to have a favourable impact on the economy of the Toronto urban area.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be a short one. I thank the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) for giving us such an interesting statistical description of the activities on Toronto Island emanating from the airport, as well as the history of this legislation and the economic considerations which he put before us.
In analysing this Bill it is important to keep in mind that there is more than just economic wellbeing, as described by the Minister, at stake here. There is also a very important set of islands that provide citizens with amenities and most enjoyable recreational outlets. In addition to that, the islands also provide, from an environmental point of view, a very important place of rest for migratory birds. Therefore, there are environmental as well as economic considerations that have to be taken into account.
In analysing this Bill it seems to me it would be desirable to produce a piece of legislation that will also have the input of interested individuals, groups of citizens, environmentalists, sailing and boating clubs as well as the groups already referred to by the Minister. It is my impression that the consultation process that has led to Bill C-76, an Act respecting the operation of the Toronto Island Airport by the Toronto Harbour Commission, requires a much broader base of consultation than has been given it so far. The Minister has already alluded to consultations with the City of Toronto, which is of course desirable and which we support. It seems to me that, once the Bill has been given second reading, a process of consultation ought to be launched by the committee to permit local consultations which so far have not taken place.
I would urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) through the Solicitor General to permit the Transport Committee to hold hearings in metro Toronto so as to hear from
October 4, 1985

interested individuals and groups and, as I mentioned, environmentalist groups among them, sailing and boating clubs and the like.
It is important to remember that the islands are more than just a landing and take-off strip for transport purposes. This is a beautiful set of islands which have at one extreme, on Ward Island, a healthy and thriving community of homes and families. There is a set of parks that covers the balance of the area and the airport activities, large in number as they are-I was surprised to hear the Minister referring to 156,000 aircraft movements-representing in terms of land use only a small fraction of the totality of what these islands are all about. From the point of view of Toronto citizens, the islands mean much more than just aircraft movements.
The powers given to the commissioners in this Bill seem to me to be too sweeping. Looking at the expropriation powers outlined in Section 7 it seems to me that the commissioners, if given the opportunity, would have expropriation powers that are unusually strong without any provision for appeal that I was able to detect in the Bill. Therefore, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the necessity of introducing in the Bill a mechanism for individuals, clubs, environmentalist groups or whoever has some kind of activity on the island that would be endangered by a process of expropriation to have a recourse-and I know that the Solicitor General is very keen and well versed and has had considerable experience-


Henry Perrin Beatty: You are trying to flatter me into something.


Mr. Caccia:: -an avenue for appealing to the powers established under any piece of legislation. It is important that an appeal process be provided, when one thinks not just of tomorrow or five years from now but of future generations of Canadians and Torontonians who enjoy very much the use of the islands for recreational purposes.
Under Section 7 there are power being outlined that may be given to the commission for the use of jet-powered aircraft. I urge the Government to reconsider the possibility envisaged in this Bill to permit jet-powered aircraft. We have Malton; we have excellent facilities at the Lester B. Pearson Airport. There is no need in the downtown area to expand the activities of that airport to include jets.
The reason for that will become more evident when we talk about the island as an area being used by migratory birds.
The section that permits commissioners to deal with levels of noise leaves me a little bit puzzled because I do not know what the definition of the words "excessive levels of noise" will be. Will it be the levels of noise as defined and applied by the City of Toronto under its present by-laws, or will it be a definition that the commissioners will develop on their own and, if so, will they do it in consultation with the city? As we all know, words like "excessive", are very hard to define when it comes to the practical application of a proposed piece of legislation. I would be grateful if the Solicitor General or the Minister of Transport would come back and explain to us how in the term "excessive levels of noise", the word "excessive" is to be applied in practice.
Toronto Island Airport
In Section 10 there is phraseoly which I suppose is quite common and I would not want to be misunderstood in trying to pick every detail out of this Bill. But it seems to me that wherever the words "his successor" are used, as on the last line of page 4, the implication is that only male commissioners would be appointed. I think that as the general practice from now on, for all the good reasons that we know, the drafters of the Bill should insert the words "his or her successor" and thus give the fullest opportunity to interpret the full meaning of what the legislators had in mind.
The general picture that emerges from this Bill is one that 1 look at with a bit of concern. We are considering the commissioners regulating air traffic and airport activities in dowtown Toronto. This is an increasingly heavily built up area. We have the CN Tower, several hotels and a number of existing high-rise buildings. More will follow if existing plans are carried out. Therefore, it seems to me that caution should be used here in looking at the future use of this airport. That is why the reference is made to the undesirability of permitting jet aircraft traffic.
I would like to raise a question on which the Minister of Transport may wish to comment at the end of the debate. At this airport, do we have the latest and most adequate radar facilities to assist and permit flights in bad weather? In the winter months and when visibility becomes difficult, this airport must be equipped with the best and latest facilities that exist in larger airports. We cannot afford to take any risks at all.
This Bill does not have an environmental clause, and it seems to me that a word or two is needed on the migration of birds. In the area, I am told that there is an intensive activity from North to South and vice versa in the appropriate migration seasons. The islands are considered to be a green oasis for all species of birds existing in our climate and others. Some 250 species of birds have been counted over a year and easily several million individual birds have been counted annually.
Lake Ontario has a habitat different from the neighbouring Great Lakes and therefore the type of bird migration that we see here on the island has a unique characteristic that must be kept in mind and protected. This area is the only place in Metro Toronto where certain types of birds can be observed by naturalists, school children and those interested in wildlife and nature. In fact, on Toronto Island there is a unique school with a fine and ancient tradition of outdoor education. At every time of year possible, children are taken there for a full week in order to carry on nature studies on site.
We have in this area a stopover point for migrating birds. We have a nesting place and an area in which birds live year round. Therefore, we have a natural asset that must be taken into account whenever we begin to talk about aircraft activity. In conclusion, since we are talking about powers being transferred by the city to the commissioners, what is missing in this Bill is that the commissioners should have the power to close the island airport for any number of days required during the

October 4, 1985
Toronto Island Airport
critical migration time of the birds if and when this seems to be desirable and required. I welcome the opportunity to have the ear of the Solicitor General during this intervention. I know that he will take to heart the points that are being made. I know that he is a very keen, devoted and committed environmentalist and I know that he is particularly keen about the protection of the migration paths of birds. Therefore, we will have in him a champion for the cause of Toronto Island which, as I said, is much more than a place in which to put an airport. It is a very important recreational and environmental part of Metro-Toronto, something which makes Metro-Toronto such an admired city the world over.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, as transportation critic for my Party, I am happy to rise to speak on this Bill. First, I wish to express my appreciation to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), for allowing me to speak before he does. Although this airport is located in his constituency, he has been good enough to let me speak first so that I can leave town later this afternoon.
I have a question of the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty). What the heck is he doing introducing this Bill? In all my years here, the Minister of Transport or at times even his Parliamentary Secretary led off any debate on transportation. Why did the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) not lead off this debate in the justifiable absence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski)? I do not understand it. Is it because the Minister of State for Transport is being relieved of her duties by the back door because of other events and other situations? Is the Minister of State for Transport being hidden from Parliament and prevented from carrying out her responsibilities? It is a question I hope a subsequent speaker from the Government side will answer.


Henry Perrin Beatty: No, it's because I was desperate to speak to this Bill, Les.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I appreciated the remarks of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). However, I would remind him that it was the Liberals who started all this.


Charles L. Caccia: Started what?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would remind him that it was three successive Liberal Ministers of Transport who promoted and encouraged STOL aircraft service and who supported the expansion and increased use of the Toronto Island Airport. Now the Tories are doing the same thing in spades. I think the Hon. Member for Davenport should have made the speech he made today on the numerous opportunities he would have had over the last number of years.


Charles L. Caccia: This is the first time this Bill has been introduced.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Hon. Member for Davenport and anyone else who was on the Government side when the Liberals were in power could have spoken on this matter in a Throne Speech debate or a budget debate. They could have raised hell
in the debate on the Estimates. They could have said a lot of things. It is amazing how their tunes change when the two old Parties change places.
It is too bad that we did not have more time to look into the ramifications of this little Bill because they go far beyond what is contained in it. For many years, the operation of this airport has created a controversy on the Toronto waterfront, the Toronto City Council and among citizens of Toronto in general. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina, who is also a former member of the city council for the area, will probably fill us in on some of the history of the development of the Toronto Island in general and the airport in particular. He shall undoubtedly let us know about the not-so-glorious history of the Toronto Harbour Commission as well. I leave that to him to do as I know he will do so very well.
It is too bad the Government wants to put this Bill through. The debate on this matter has been going on for some time, not only in the context of the Toronto Island Airport and the short take-off and landing services but in the context of how the Government of the day works at cross purposes. Regarding Via Rail, the Government has invested tens of millions of dollars in a high-speed passenger train called the LRC in order to provide a high speed, frequent and efficient service in the Quebec City-Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto-Windsor corridor. It has made this investment to attract people away from their automobiles and, hopefully, out of some of the congested airports in order to provide a service which a large number of people want. That is fine. Then, what does the Government do? At the same time, through the provision of capital, it proceeds to make way for the operations of a short take-off and landing aircraft service in the same corridor. That move can do nothing but inhibit, if not decrease, the potential for passenger increases on VIA Rail.
When the Government sinks a few hundred million dollars into some 31 locomotives and, I believe, something in the order of 150 passenger cars for the LRC, and then at the same time turns around and spends money to provide an additional service, even though there are lots of buses, trains and other aircraft operating in the same corridor, it seems to defeat the original purpose. I do not see the Toronto Harbour Commission having the money to spend on this measure since, as far as I know, the commission does not have any money. I do not understand.
I criticized the previous Liberal Government for working at cross purposes within its own ranks. 1 thought we would see some change on the part of the new Conservative Government. I'll be darned if it is not doing exactly the same thing. It is incredible. There were Conservatives who stood up as often as we did in previous years to criticize what the Liberals were attempting to do with respect to the Toronto Island Airport and the whole matter of short take-off and landing services in the Quebec-Windsor corridor, including Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto.
October 4, 1985

The place for that type of service is not in a highly populated and congested area where there are numerous other services such as super-highways, eight or ten buses a day, four or five airlines operating flights and VIA Rail's operations. What does the Government do? It inserts another service which divides the market up into even smaller pieces. People participating in the market take turns at going broke and the taxpayers pick up the tab. I do not understand it.
The place for short take-off and landing aircraft is not on expensive runways with expensive infrastructures. The place for this type of service is in sparseley populated areas in the northern parts of our provinces and in Arctic Canada. Short take-off and landing aircraft can be used on a gravel strip if need be. Low cost and frequent service can be provided, and those are the places for that type of aircraft.
I understand and appreciate that the Government is anxious with respect to the sale of Dash-7s and Dash-8s. I understand the Government is trying to entice countries such as Brazil, Argentina, other South American countries in the Andes Mountains such as Chile, Peru and Bolivia, as well as some European countries, to buy short take-off and landing aircraft, which are darned good aircraft. Those countries have large isolated areas and widely scattered populations where the use of that type of aircraft is ideal, such as in the jungles of Brazil, the prairies of the Argentine or the mountains of western South America.
We were told by the bureaucrats and the Government of the day a few years ago that this short take-off and landing service out of Toronto Island Airport would serve as a demonstration model for potential buyers. Well, the potential buyers received all types of demonstration models out of metropolitan areas all over the world and had the experience of probably 100 different airlines to draw from. Canada had a golden opportunity to make a much better and proper use of short take-off and landing aircraft for a demonstration model in order to entice other countries to buy those aircraft. Instead of doing that, the Government is setting up an elitist air service for business executives, corporate directors and MPs. I do not know of many pensioners or low income people who will be able to use the service.
Thus, the Government has done it backward again. From the content of the Bill, we are not sure what the Government plans for the work of the Toronto Harbour Commission. In fact, members of the New Democratic Party are not sure what the intentions of the harbour commission are toward the future of the airport. We are not convinced it will keep jets out of the airport in accordance with its agreement with the City of Toronto. The Bill states that the Toronto Harbour Commission may prohibit the use of jets. All that means is that if the commission does not say anything, then someone else can use jets. That is all that means. It seems to me the Government had better make up its mind since there is an agreement between the City of Toronto and the Toronto Harbour Commission. Is the Government trying to undermine the City of Toronto and undermine the agreement and allow the harbour commission to do whatever it likes? We are not sure the
Toronto Island Airport
harbour commission will not use the powers of expropriation which it will be given by this Bill to obtain the lands it needs to build the bridge it wants, to expand its terminal and runway to accommodate larger and, perhaps, jet-powered aircraft at the Toronto Island Airport.
I can recall a time when the Transport Committee visited the Toronto Island Airport. It was a boar's nest. What passes for a terminal there would not make a good granary on the Prairies. The best thing that could happen to it would be a fire.


Walter Franklin McLean: Good Lord, an arsonist!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Obviously, what will have to happen if, as and when this Bill passes, will be the building of a new terminal. More and larger fire and emergency services will have to be put in place. The airport will need more land. The City of Toronto and the residents of Toronto Island have been most vociferous, with some justification, about the preservation of the parks, the nice residences and the milieu in which they live on Toronto Island. They can kiss all that good-bye since there is no doubt the move is eventually to have a major airport operation in the Toronto harbour compared to what is in place now.
I cannot understand that the hell a harbour commission is doing running an airport. However, if it can improve matters then I wonder if we can have a harbour commission in Regina to run our airport and perhaps it could even run the international airport in Edmonton. It passes my understanding what the dickens a harbour commission is doing running an airport. I thought its concerns were with water and not air.
We feel these matters need to be cleared up before we can give support to the Minister's proposed changes. For example, Mr. Speaker, large co-op housing developments are being built only a short distance from that airport. That may cause those who are going to build, whether co-op housing or any other kind, to step back and take another look, because a few years down the road when this becomes something of a major metropolitan airport operation, they probably will not be able to give the development away.
At the moment, we are inclined to oppose this legislation and we want a lot of answers. We believe that this Bill should not only go to committee but we want a commitment from the Solicitor General, since he is in charge of this Bill at least for today, that the committee on Transport or the Legislative Committee will be authorized and empowered by an order of reference in this House to hold hearings in the City of Toronto. If that takes two or three days, that's fine, but hearings just in Ottawa will not be sufficient. There are too many people who are interested who cannot afford the travelling expense. The great thing about Toronto is that there are members of the New Democratic Party who are members of the Legislative Assembly, it has the Blue Jays, and my son, daughter-in-law and grandson live there. The New Democratic Party in the Prairies has a secret plan for Toronto-we just fill it full of wheat. There are some great people living there and

October 4, 1985
Toronto Island Airport
there is a nice park there which they want preserved. You can bet your bottom dollar, Mr. Speaker, that by the time these great Tory business types get through with that place in two or three years, some of those residents, if they do not sell out now, will not be able to get much for their property.
The Minister has proposed privatizing airports, which is something we do not generally support, although there is nothing new about provincially and municipally owned airports. We did not think, however, that he meant to give over the operation and the profits, if any, while retaining the responsibility for any potential loss. That is great Tory business sense, Mr. Speaker. If it makes money, business gets to keep it, and if it loses money, the taxpayers get to pay for it. They are marvellous businessmen. I am sure that this is a principle which would go over pretty well at the local Chamber of Commerce meeting. This is, of course, a standard procedure not only in this administration but in previous administrations as well. That's what happens when the tweedle-dees and the tweedle-dums are in charge. They involve themselves in business only when business needs the money.
Who is in this Toronto Harbour Commission which the Conservatives wish to put in charge of the Toronto Island Airport? The City Council gets to elect three of its members, and I suppose it is an improvement in the Bill that it will take a majority vote of the City Council and that any member of the Council can nominate a candidate for the position. I suppose that is a democratic improvement. However, why should the Toronto Board of Trade get to pick those fellows who run around in their yachting caps, blue blazers and grey flannels, the big wheels? How about the Toronto the District Labour Council or the residents' association in that area nominating someone to that harbour commission? This Government has bragged about being open and more democratic. Why should this body not be beefed up to include real elected representatives from City Council instead of a few nauticals types? Why not someone who lives on the island? No one will suffer greater change than the residents of the island community if a bridge or tunnel to link the islands were approved or built by the harbour commission.
Obviously, because the Minister has opened up the membership of the commission through this Bill even he recognizes that there should be some changes. I think we may have to move some amendments which will make a few more changes. I think we may have to move amendments which will make a few more changes.
I look on this, Mr. Speaker, as part of the whole "freedom to move" syndrome of the Government which wa started by the Liberals in 1974-1975 under the Hon. Otto Lang. It was user-pay, deregulation, too much Government, cut-backs, restraint; the "proposition 13" syndrome imported from California. It means, in the case of the Toronto Island Airport, freedom to change the different types of aircraft. It means new companies serving that airport with no need to justify their arrival, and they will want roads and warehouses and service centres and so on. It means more congestion and crowding on the island which is already congested. Getting there in a car is
enough to give a coyote heartburn, and this will make it even worse for the people who reside on that island. This will involve changes to the whole waterfront because of the change to the regulations of railroads and shipping which the Government proposes in its "freedom to move White Paper". In fact, the Toronto Island Airport Bill is only one of a whole host of relatively minor things in the total package which this Government, following the lead of the previous Government, wants to implement in Canada in order to impose a theory which is at best unproven and at worst, I submit, is proven to be bad transportation economics, bad for the public and bad for the taxpayers.	,
The experience in other places has not shown that the so-called "freedom to move" syndrome, which I call "freedom to manoeuvre", in fact will be any kind of an improvement except to a few of the big operators. They will have a ball, as usual. But the ordinary people who live in places like the Toronto Island, who cannot afford the luxury of flying on executive-type aircraft, are not being taken into consideration.
I submit that this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is just a continuation of a Government working at cross purposes when it invests in high speed rail passenger service and also invests in a competing mode of transportation which will take customers away from the rail service.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Did the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) say that he was not going to be back after lunch? I wanted to make sure that I was back in the Chair to listen to the rest of his speech. He still has 20 minutes or so. Or will he be leaving for his riding?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I expect to use up five or ten minutes after two o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All right. Following the Hon. Member's speech this afternoon, we will to 20-minute speeches with questions and comments.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) had the floor.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If my colleagues are lucky, I will wind up my remarks very quickly. The Minister of Transport has continued to announce plans and proceed with them before thinking about their consequences. The announcements made by the Minister last summer are an indication of his lack of planning.
October 4, 1985

Furthermore, the Minister of State for Transport has not made those studies either. She did not even introduce the Bill, although she has some responsibilities-particularly in the absence of the Minister of Transport. 1 assume that the Minister of State for Transport will speak in the debate today on the merits of this Bill, whatever they are, concerning the Toronto Island Airport.
Let me elaborate on how the Minister of Transport has not thought about the ramifications of the action he has taken up to this point. One of the main purposes of this Bill is to allow corporate jets to operate out of the Toronto Island Airport. A lot of those "mucky-mucks" want to operate out of the Toronto Island Airport but I am sure the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is not one of them. He might muck around a lot but-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Shame on you. You know me too well.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This Bill is an example of how the Minister of Transport introduces legislation without thinking it through. While this Bill may appear to be relatively minor in terms of the total context of national transportation, it is typical of the path we have been on since the days of Otto Lang, Jean-Luc Pepin, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and now the Minister of Transport and the Minister of State for Transport.
Perhaps an Hon. Member from the Government side could tell me why the Solicitor General was interested in introducing this Bill rather than the Minister of State for Finance? I do not know why he would be bothered because the Lester Pearson Airport is much closer to his riding than the Toronto Island Airport. He could utilize a number of airlines into Lester Pearson Airport and could even use a Challenger jet- although I am sure he would not-to go to Lester Pearson Airport rather than the Toronto Island Airport.
We must take another issue into consideration when dealing with this Bill at second reading stage and later in committee. The Toronto Harbour Commissioners had all of the development rights on the railway lands in downtown Toronto. They want to build a stadium in downtown Toronto. While I do not care where it is, they should build a stadium so that the World Series between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Montreal Expos three or four years from now can take place in Canada and give the United States a nervous breakdown. In any event, that land deal gave them all of the development rights on the railway lands.
1 must question the competence, intelligence or foresight of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners for selling their development rights to those railway lands owned by CN and CP- primarily CN-for a million dollars. This is some time back, probably after the Blue Jays arrived in Toronto. On that land, that would probably buy you one acre. It is worth $30 or $40 million. But the Toronto Harbour Commission gave it away. The Toronto Harbour Commission has no money. It is broke. That means that while one or both railroads are putting up a stadium, while the Government is allowing different airline companies, whether the airlines have propeller or jet-driven
Toronto Island Airport
aircraft, to take business away from one of its own companies for which the Government is responsible on behalf of the taxpayers, it will finance and pay the bill for Toronto Island Airport.
All the expenditures will have to be made because of an additional volume of air transport, and the Government will pay that in competition with its own Crown corporations. 1 do not understand it. If it were all a private operation and if the private operation got the authority from the Ministry of Transport, the Toronto Harbour Commission and the Toronto City Council or the Toronto Metro Council for putting up the competition for Air Canada or VIA Rail, then fine. So long as they pay the Bills for the construction of a new airport terminal, improvement of the runways, the addition of firefighting and emergency services et cetera, they can have their so-called competition game.
Any outfit that would give away the entire development rights for those lands for $1 million calls into question-I do not want to be unkind about this-its intelligence and foresightedness.
I have a number of other suspicions which you, Mr. Speaker, and all other Hon. Members of this House likely have. When the Minister keeps making these announcements, statements and bringing in legislation without really thinking it through, he leads us down the path we have been on since the days of one, Otto Lang.
The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West was one who was more vociferous, or as much as I was, about user pay, cost recovery, restraint, cut-back, use it or lose it. He was equally adamant in opposing that sort of concept put forward by the Liberal administration. Now we are getting the same damn thing in spades whether it is "the freedom to move White Paper", Operation 1990, or the revamping of the Department of Transport. Incidentally, I am not necessarily against that because there has been some revamping needed for quite a while, to our bitter experience in western Canada. It is not what the Government is going to do but how the Government is going to do it, who is the Government going to do it for, and who it is going to do it with.
I want to say that the whole concept of volume movement of people, goods and services in terms of transportation out of densely populated metropolitan areas has always been left to the movers and shakers who can make the biggest and the fastest bucks.
There has been inadequate, to put it mildly, consideration given to the users of those services and inadequate consideration given to small manufacturers, processors and transporters not only in the Quebec-Windsor corridor, but all over the country.
We continue to set up transportation facilities that discriminate against people because of where they happen to live or against the goods they happen to produce, process or manufacture. More particularly, the last to get consideration are ordinary people who have to, and I repeat "have to", use the

October 4, 1985
Toronto Island Airport
service either directly or indirectly whether they like it or not. To put additional costs on taxpayers and an additional service that is neither wanted nor needed by the overwhelming majority of ordinary citizens, whether they be in Toronto or anywhere between Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa, an additional service which they cannot use, that is luxury or elitist or one that provides accommodation for corporate jets, surely does not meet the transportation needs of the ordinary producers, processors, manufacturers, shippers and travelling public.
Surely the Toronto Island Airport syndrome that has been around for a number of years has never been designed for the ordinary citizens who travel in and out of Toronto, most of whom are residents of or residents close to Toronto. I think the Minister brings in this Bill in a hurry without really having thought it all through or having thought about its ramifications.
There is nothing personal about it. I do not question the integrity or the honesty of the Toronto Harbour Commission. I have met with the commission. I was given a harbour commission necktie, which I think the commission wanted me to hang myself with. But I question the commission on the kind of priorities it follows, which are nothing more than the logical result of the priorities established by the Government of the day, its legislation, regulations and policies.
The Toronto Island Airport is in existence. It is suitable for private light aircraft. It creates only minimal disturbance for wildlife, migratory birds, the citizens who live there and the park located there.
Why do we need-and I wish someone would explain this to me-a multiplicity of transportation services to compete in a limited market in which there are already a dozen or more companies operating? I hate to give advice to my private enterprise friends across the way in the Liberal Party, but it seems to me a good private enterprise principle. If the market is divided into too many parts, those who move in to share in the gravy take turns going broke and the service deteriorates. The problem is that the Liberals and the Conservatives want a champagne operation in a beer market.
If people of Newfoundland, the people on the Prairies or those in the northern parts of our provinces were asked about the project, I am sure they would say: "What about our services?". There should be a priority to spread the services around in a reasonable manner so that Canadian citizens are not discriminated against because of where they happen to live or what they happen to produce, process or manufacture. It is not only airports; it is everything.
I hope the Government will take another look at this minor detail, relatively speaking, in its total transportation policy. Perhaps it could take another look at it and realize that it should reconsider its entire thrust.
I say to the President of the Privy Council in all sincerity that we will go full circle as we did during World War I and World War II when a regulatory body was brought in which did not serve consumers and the public in general well enough.
Even though we will go in a full circle, a few years down the road this Government or another one will be faced with having to reinstate a regulatory agency which will hopefully be better than the one in the past. That will be the logical result.
I hope the Minister of State for Transport comes into the House to answer the questions I have raised. The Hon. Member for Spadina and I will not ask her about travelling; we will talk about transportation.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to comment at this stage in the debate on Bill C-76, an Act respecting the operation of the Toronto Island Airport by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must say I am not very pleased with the way this Bill was put before the House. I would say this was a hasty affair. In fact, first reading of the Bill took place on September 24, 1985, that is, last week, and this week, we get the Bill for second reading, when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) is absent. What is so urgent about this Bill that it had to be considered today, when neither the Minister of Transport nor the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) are in the House to talk about the Bill and explain why it must be approved by the House? This department has two Ministers, one senior and one junior, and neither is here to explain why this Bill is so important. I regret this, Mr. Speaker, because we would have liked to have heard from the Minister what reasons motivated the Department to hand over to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners the operations of a small airport that is practically in the heart of the City of Toronto.
This morning, my hon. friend from Davenport (Mr. Caccia) spoke with great eloquence about the fears that many people in Toronto have and will continue to have about operations that might be a threat to the environment and the tranquillity of the people of Toronto, if jets are allowed to land and take off at this small airport in the very heart of the City of Toronto.
I feel that Bill C-76, and especially the section dealing with the powers of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to make by-laws, is a very dangerous one. I was quite astonished when I read Section 7 of Bill C-76 for the first time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it shows a lack of responsibility on the part of the Minister of Transport of this country. It is not the first time the Minister has been willing to abdicate his responsibilities in the area of transportation in this country. In the newspapers this summer, we read that the Minister of Transport was getting ready to delegate to municipal authorities, or even to private entreprise, the management and operations of many of Canada's airports. I even met a mayor from the Maritimes, who had been approached on behalf of the Minister of Transport by officials from his department, and who had expressed some interest in taking over responsibility for a municipal airport and involving his council in the daily man-
October 4, 1985

agement of an airport, and who took back what he said only a few days later, saying: No thanks! "What the Minister of Transport is trying to do is give me a booby-trapped present, a present that would involve excessively large expenditures by the municipality, and 1 do not want any part of this new responsibility the Minister of Transport is so anxious to give me."
But what I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is that we know that the Minister of Transport, to please the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), is getting ready to cut spending in his department and to make very severe cuts in his department's budget, to help the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance reduce this country's deficit. Now, this desire on the part of the Minister of Transport to abdicate his responsibility for operating our Canadian airports has not been fully explained in this House. We still do not know where he wants to go nor the full extent of such decentralization of airport operations in Canada.
I am looking forward to hearing the Minister of Transport express clearly in the House or in parliamentary committee his views on this question. Is the Minister planning to hand all Canadian airport operations over to the private sector or to municipal authorities? Or will just the odd airport be involved, like this Maritime airport where in fact the Government was trying to pull a fast one on municipal authorities and have them assume the responsibilities of the Canadian Government and force them to pick up the rather expensive tab in some of the remote regions of Canada?
What has me concerned is that the Minister of Transport is prepared to hand over to local authorities an airport located in the heart of the City of Toronto. The consequences can be very serious. To put it another way, the Minister of Transport is prepared to give free rein to five commissioners, three appointed by local authorities and two by the Governor in Council, but in one case on the recommendation of the City of Toronto Board of Trade. In fact, four locally made appointments and only one under the responsibility of the Canadian Government.
It could mean that those people, anxious to turn this small airport in the middle of Toronto into a profitable operation, would have unlimited powers to authorize jet aircraft service some time in the future. I think that would be a tragedy, Mr. Speaker, because for a number of years the Government of Canada has been trying to protect the public from air and noise pollution in major Canadian cities. I remember that the previous Government took drastic measures to prevent aircraft from landing late at night at airports located close to major urban centres to protect the public from so much noise pollution. Special efforts have been made in recent years to build airports in the suburbs of major centres. We all know about the decision to build an international airport in Mirabel rather
Toronto Island Airport
than leaving all airport operations in Dorval where they used to be. People may now have forgotten about it, but one of the major reasons of this decision was that the population of Dorval, Lachine and other towns in the vicinity complained about the noise of planes landing at night in Dorval. However, since we have set very strict requirements for air service, especially for jets, remarkable efforts have been made to protect the environment, as well as the peace and quiet of residents. Yet, in my opinion, Section 7 of Bill C-76 could annihilate all the efforts made in this regard in recent years. 1 find it unacceptable that this bill should give the five Harbour Commissioners in Toronto the exclusive responsibility to decide whether jets will land at the Toronto Island Airport.
I had a meeting today with the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs who explained to me how carefully this issue should be examined and how important it was for everyone involved, especially those who have already expressed their views in the Toronto area, to be heard.
Mr. Speaker, one of the first things that the new Progressive Conservative Government told us after the elections of September 4 was that they would consult the population and that their Government would be an open Government, one willing to hear the complaints of everyone. Yet, as we all know, since September 4, 1984, many major decisions affecting very important matters have been made by this Government without any consultation whatsoever. The Government tried to use the back-door to de-index Old Age Security pensions without any consultation, but the outcry of senior citizens forced the Government to back down.
I would not want Bill C-26 to be the cause of another useless reversal by the Conservative Government, but the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion, the Minister of Transport did not consult the population before tabling this bill. It is wrong to give five Toronto Harbour Commissioners the full power to decide whether or not jets will be able to land at this airport. If there had been previous consultations, I am certain that the wording of this bill would be different. I therefore believe that this bill, instead of being rammed through the House, should be scrutinized and that public hearings should be held.
I believe that the committee to which this bill will be referred after it receives second reading should hold public briefings on this Bill in Toronto. It is unthinkable for a Government which calls itself a Government of consultation to ignore the grievances of the Ontario population and of groups which are interested in the development of the Toronto Islands, and for various organizations that want to protect the peace and quiet and quality of life of Toronto residents not to be heard and to be deprived of their right to speak and express their views during the consideration of this bill.
This Bill is therefore a source of concern for me, Mr. Speaker. If this is the first of a series of moves by the Minister of Transport to elude his responsibilities in the area of airport facilities in Canada, if this is the first of such moves by the

October 4, 1985
Toronto Island Airport
Minister of Transport, involving as it does today the Toronto Island Airport, and if tomorrow it is going to be an airport in the Maritime Provinces, and the day after an airport in Quebec, and the next day an airport in Western Canada, certainly we should not allow the Minister of Transport to so elude his responsibilities one after the other. In my view, the Minister should make a statement in the House or appear before the Standing Committee on Transport, to indicate clearly his position on Canadian airports.
We know the Minister wants to save money, we know his hope is to transfer the operation of many airports to municipalities or private enterprise, but we do not know how and in what form. And above all we do not have a list of such airports which the Minister of Transport wants to get rid off. I submit this is not good enough. We should know where we are going. We cannot accept that the Minister should come here hurriedly on a Friday afternoon and introduce a piece of legislation, expecting us to approve it without knowing what will happen next week and which other airport will be turned over to strangers. And I say "strangers" because the Government of Canada has an important responsibility in the area of transportation in Canada. And, as my colleague for the New Democratic Party said earlier, I ask: How is this policy going to mesh with the rail transportation policy?
Some time ago, the Minister of Transport stated he wanted to invest very large sums of money to help rail transportation in Canada's major centres. Will not allowing a privileged operation of the Toronto Island Airport cause direct competition with VIA Rail, which intends to make its operations viable between Windsor, Toronto and Montreal? Does the Government really know where it is going?
I am asking that question, Mr. Speaker, because it is incumbent on the Minister of Transport to keep us informed on that. We want to know exactly whether there is an over-all plan, a master plan in the Department of Transport, or whether they are simply acting on impulse with day-to-day policies, and to top it all coming here in a hurry on a Friday afternoon to have us approve a piece of legislation that looks quite dangerous to me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments? The Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Girard).


Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: On the same subject, Mr. Speaker. Is the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) referring to the same concernes the people of Toronto voiced when the Liberal Party did nothing for the people of Pickering about the airport being built?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the very positive response of the previous Government to those citizens will be an example to be followed by this Tory Government. The Hon. Member should know that no airport was built in Pickering.
There is no Pickering airport. Our Government had consultations and decided afterwards according to the wishes of the population not to build an airport in Pickering.
I just hope now that the people of Toronto who are worried about jets being allowed to land in downtown Toronto will be heard by the Tory Government.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill which would have the effect of establishing an airport on Toronto Island of a different sort from the one that exists now.

I will deal mainly with the problems as they are in Toronto, because I think that the Hon. Members are unaware of the conditions there.

The fact is that this airport site has been under discussion in Toronto for many years. It has been a matter of discussion, particularly between the City Council of Toronto and the harbour commission.
For a great many years, the harbour commission has been nominally responsible for conducting the business of the harbour. It has been winding up that business-for whatever reason, the harbour seems to be disappearing-and it is gradually converting itself into a real estate operation. As new buildings are built in Toronto, cheap fill is made available and the harbour commission has been busy for many decades filling the lake and selling the new land thereby created at next to no cost to the harbour commission. The harbour commission is going out of the shipping business, or at least the shipping business is certainly leaving Toronto, but the harbour commission does not seem to care if the use it makes of the old land and the new land created under its jurisdiction is a use that is desired by the citizens and residents of the City of Toronto.
Over the years, there have been many discussions between Toronto City Council, which appointed some of the members of the harbour commission, and the harbour commission itself about its accounts. The harbour commission was always complaining that the airport was losing money. This was an airport designed primarily for recreational and occasional light commercial use, not for regular commercial schedules. Hundreds of thousands of flights did go through that airport, but they were primarily recreational and light commercial flights.
When the commission complained it was losing money and had to expand in order to recoup its losses, it would never make available its accounts. The City Council could never find out why the Toronto Harbour Commission was always losing money when it was in the land selling business as well as in the transportation business.
There are other disputes surrounding that area. There have been disputes regarding the Toronto islands themselves. At one time there was a move afoot to clear out all the residents from the islands, and most of them were cleared off. A major regional park was developed and a good deal of water and land
October 4, 1985

was left in a natural state. That is to say, marshes exist there and, as has been mentioned, birds nest there regularly and migratory birds make it a regular stop. There is a school on the island which takes in children from Toronto for a week at a time to study natural things which cannot be studies at any other school in the city.
The citizens of Toronto have been very actively concerned with that park. When it was found that there was sufficient parkland for the needs of those people of Metro Toronto who wanted to use it, the City of Toronto pushed to stop the demolition and removal of houses because it has been found that the park is better off for having a few hundred people living alongside it. Now we have an island community as well as a park in the area.
Across the water on the mainland, as the harbour commission has been moving the harbour business to the east end of the harbour where there is now a container park, the land along the waterfront has been made available for housing, commerce and a variety of uses other than heavy industry. Heavy industry is slowly being phased out of the central part of the waterfront. In fact, a number of residential buildings have already been built and occupied on the waterfront and there are many more planned. As well, recreational, commercial and very light industrial buildings are planned.
City Council has given a great deal of attention to planning the housing and other facilities that should go in the waterfront area so that there is a good balance. The City Council wants to make sure that there are housing opportunities for families who wish to live there. The present Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) who is responsible for housing thinks that it is a stupid idea to put family housing on the waterfront because the land is too expensive. However, City Council feels that the waterfront should be made available to all sorts of people. The council feels that the waterfront should be accessed from the land at many points and that the people who live in the waterfront area should be people of all incomes and of all family styles including singles and families. Through experience, that is the kind of neighbourhood that we have found works for Toronto.
There has been a continual debate with the harbour commission over City Council's plans for the waterfront. For that matter, there had been a continual debate with the previous federal Government which had other plans for the waterfront. It wanted to turn it into a much more expensive, aristocratic commercial and residential area. The pressure being exerted by Toronto City Council is with respect to keeping that waterfront, including the island and the Toronto Island Airport, as part of the City of Toronto. Therefore, it is disappointing to find that Bill C-76 was slipped in with the least possible notice and without any consultation with the City of Toronto.
When I raised the matter a few days ago with a member of Toronto City Council, who has been actively concerned with this issue for 12 or 13 years and who is one of the aldermen for Ward 9 in the Beaches, I found that Toronto City Council and
Toronto Island Airport
Toronto planning staff had been given no information whatsoever about this Bill. That is just part of the wonderful record of consultation about which the Tory Government advertised a year ago. This Government continues to send out bales and bales of printed material to our offices which say absolutely nothing. When there is something to say with respect to a proposed law which will make basic changes to Toronto's airports, there is not a word, not one line of notice. There was not the slightest invitation to the members of Toronto City Council, or to the Planning Department of the City of Toronto, to comment on the Bill during its drafting. Nor was there an invitation extended to it to get in on the debate until this point.
I heartily support the suggestion of the three previous speakers that this matter should be referred not only to committee but that the committee should hold hearings in the City of Toronto. That is where the airport will make a difference, for better or worse.
Of course, it is always posssible to point out the benefits of an airport to those people who have the occasion, the leisure and the money to travel. What has to be pointed out, and what has been pointed out by Toronto City Council many times, is that there is a down side to the issue. For example, if jets are allowed, as this Bill tacitly permits, there will be a tremendous increase of noise over the mainland and the island. If jets come in, there will be a tremendous increase of surface traffic, of people and freight, going to and from the island. There will be a disruption of the present traffic on streets such as Front, York, University and Spadina. There will have to be a long construction process in regard to putting up the facilities necessary for a jet port and, no doubt, a new bridge or tunnel will have to be cosntructed, which will spell the end to the island park as the quiet place it is now. There is talk of putting a light rapid transit system along the waterfront and up Spadina. That plan is opposed by many people. However, perhaps it is part of someone else's plan. Perhaps it is part of someone's plan relating to the airport and the idea that there will be jets at the airport which, as I say, is hinted at in the Bill in an upside-down way. It is stated in the Bill that the commissioners may pass by-laws to prevent jets or other noisy planes. In other words, if the commissioners neglect to do that, there will be jets and noisy planes in violation of an agreement negotiated between City Council, the previous Government of Canada and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners. I will come to that agreement in a moment.
In addition to the disruption of the traffic, and in addition to that noise, there will be pressure to either stop any further residential buildings or even to do away with the residential buildings which are there on the mainland and on the island now. It will be argued that people have to move away to make more room for the jet planes. That would be the most serious violation of the spirit of the agreement which was negotiated four years ago between the Government of Canada and its harbour commission, which it controls, and the Toronto City Council.

October 4, 1985
Toronto Island Airport
In regard to the options for an airport, it has been pointed out by many people, including many people from the City of Toronto and many who sit on city council, that the money spent to upgrade the airport, and the money that will be spent in much greater quantity to upgrade it for a jet port, is needed to upgrade the rail system which runs east, west and north of Toronto. Rail fares are substantially lower than air fares. In fact, the travel time on the better trains between Toronto and Montreal are not that much greater than the STOL time. Of course, between Toronto and Ottawa that is a different story, which involves a train that often does not travel all the way. The train often stops in Kingston.
What is wanted by the people of Toronto is cheap and efficient rail transport, which could be available if the money were not diverted into an airport which, by its very nature, will be more expensive than rail transport and which will be used by only a few whose business or leisure concerns make that appropriate.
The Clerk of the Standing Committee on Transport is in receipt of a letter from Alderman Dale Martin, one of the aldermen in Ward 6 where this airport is located. Mr. Martin is very much concerned with the possibility of this Bill slipping through. He states, in part, in his letter:
As you are no doubt aware, the issue of jet plane traffic and commercial air traffic into the Toronto Island Airport is a very controversial one. There has been considerable debate both at the Council level and between the Council and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners on both matters. The proposals to transfer jurisdiction for the regulation and operation of the Island Airport to the Toronto Harbour Commission is, in vew of the Harbour Commission's stated agreement to allowing jet aircraft to use the Island Airport, of some concern.
He points out in his letter that the change of the method of appointment of commissioners will have some effect toward the weakening of the sense of responsibility and answerability of the harbour commission members to the Toronto City Council. He concludes his letter thus:
I would, therefore, respectfully submit that the Committee should hold public hearings into both of these matters, preferably in the City of Toronto prior to the Committee making its decision on the proposals.
Alderman Martin is referring, of course, to the Standing Committee on Transport which, in fact, will not be conducting these hearings. We now have in place a double system of committees which will mean twice as many meetings. There is no doubt that the meetings Alderman Martin seeks are meetings of the legislative committee with respect to this Bill. He is urging that those meetings be held in Toronto to give ample opportunity to members of the City Council, other municipalities which are concerned with the airport, the public, groups who use transportation other than air transportation, residents of the island and of the mainland, and representatives of the recreational industries around Toronto harbour and Toronto Island to speak to the committee in an effort to try to ensure that the agreement worked out with such long and arduous negotiation between City Council, the Government and its harbour commission is not just wiped out by one hastily and poorly considered Bill put through by Members of the House.
I know from my own experience, and other Hon. Members have probably had the same experience, that the new committee system is a problem. In effect, each committee has been split into two operations. Apparently, each operation must have as many meetings as the previous committee. In other words, there is almost a doubling of the work. In some cases, witnesses who give testimony before one committee will find it necessary to speak to the other half of the committee because the subject matters are different. We may have the same experience with the Committee on Transport, I don't know. It probably would have made much more sense had the Committee on Transport, prior to this Bill being introduced, held a meeting in Toronto to hear the views of Toronto people about the airport which is growing up within the City of Toronto. Had that been done, I think Bill C-76 would have been much better considered. Rather than saying the commissioners "may" make bylaws strictly prohibiting jet aircraft, I think it would have been better saying "there shall be no jet aircraft". Rather than making bylaws to prohbiit excessive noise, perhaps some kind of standard for noise should have been indicated, as has already been pointed out by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). The City of Toronto has engineers who have a great deal of experience in dealing with the noises of a modern city. They make sure that the noise level is not intolerable and at the same time the necessary operations of the city can continue. They know something about noise in Toronto.
Perhaps the Department of Transport knows something about noise as well. However, there should have been some agreement before this Bill was brought to Parliament about how the noise factor is going to be handled. I would also like to point out that it has been an unusual handling of the Bill. It has been slipped through with no notice. It was almost as if the Bill was to be given first reading last week before it was printed. It was not available to Hon. Members at the time first reading was asked for. There was no notice to the city which will be substantially affected one way or another by this Bill. There is no clarity as to whether there will be time for discussion. It may be that the committee will give the city only a couple of days in which to respond to this Bill. That is the way one committee I know of is operating. It wants to have everything wrapped up by the end of two weeks from now. That does not give City Council or the planning department a fair chance to respond. I ask that this Bill not only go to committee but that the committee hold hearings in Toronto and that the hearings be at a time which is practical and workable for the Toronto City Council in order to prepare its response. It should be given time to inquire of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) about the details which are not spelled out in order to have a fair assessment of what the impact of this law would be upon the 600,000 people who live in suburbs of Toronto and the two million who live in Metropolitan Toronto. I ask Hon. Members who do not live in Toronto to consider how they would feel if this were being dropped into the middle of the communities which each of them represents. I ask those Hon. Members to consider the necessity of giving Toronto time to consider this.
October 4, 1985


Mr. Belsher:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member in his speech talked about not knowing about the agreement, but later on he referred to a letter written by council with respect to the Toronto Island Airport. I am curious to know on what he was basing his remarks.
I believe the noise by-law provided for in the Bill does have the protection about which the Hon. Member is so worried. It also specifies that no straight jets will be permitted. It is also in the agreement, to my understanding, that no bridges or tunnels will be permitted. That is already in the agreement. The agreement is a public document. It is not something which is being hidden as implied by the Hon. Member.
With respect to the appointment system, it is my understanding that the City of Toronto will be able to appoint three out of five members to the Commission. It also goes one step further in that the members will not just be appointed by the executive of the City Council but will go before the total of the council, the whole council itself, which will make it in line with the rest of the nominations which go to other boards. Therefore, the council has the protection there. This has been worked out with the City of Toronto and the Commission and it is not all one way as the Hon. Member would lead us to believe.
I think those were the points I wanted to cover. I wonder if the Hon. Member would care to comment on those points or should we just leave it at that?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, those are quite relevant points and more will be said about them when there are hearings in Toronto. The agreement may or may not be superseded by this legislation. It is not clear. I tried to make an inquiry as to the effects of this legislation on the agreement and I have not found here or in Toronto clear answers as to what can happen to the terms of that agreement once this legislation goes into effect.
With respect to the appointment of the commissioners, the Hon. Member is not quite accurate when he says they are appointed by the executive. They are nominated by the executive, according to the current system, and that nomination must be ratified by a vote of two thirds of council. In other words, no one becomes a commissioner unless he or she has the confidence of two thirds of council. This will reduce the base of the commissioner's support to possibly a bare majority of council which is more likely to leave the way open for pressure from the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to have the terms of that agreement renegotiated so as to allow a drainage or tunnel or jets.
The powers of expropriation, newly given to the Harbour commission, will enable it to put pressure on the city, either through the council or through other enterprises, public or private, as a bargaining lever for getting what it wants on the airport land. These things, I believe, have not been considered by council because when I made an inquiry I did not find anything with respect to it. I know it was discussed in the Committee on Transport a number of years ago, but I do not believe the terms of this Bill were discussed in any way which
Toronto Island Airport
made it known to members of the Toronto City Council who are the most concerned.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), given his concern, is aware of the noise level created by jet aircraft using that airport? Is he aware that technology in that area has improved very significantly over the past years and that the jet aircraft using that airport, like the Challenger and other jets, have a noise level far below the parameters about which he is worried? Therefore, they would not infringe upon those parameters. The Hon. Member may have a legitimate concern about noise levels but if he draws the boundaries where he is, does he not realize that he is worried about the wrong thing?
Second, if Toronto is asking for this provision, does the Hon. Member not think that Toronto has a right to the services for which it is asking? Are we in a position to override what Toronto is asking for?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: On the second point, it has not been shown that Toronto is asking for this Bill. It is not a matter of whether Toronto should be given what it is asking for, it is a matter of whether Toronto should get what certain narrow interests are asking for.
As to the noise of the jets, it is true that there are some quiet jets, and there may well be in future some quieter jets. That does not prove those will be the only ones which come into Toronto Airport. The objection to the jet service is not based solely on the question of noise, it is based also on the amount of room taken up by the new facilities which will have to be constructed, and on the amount of heavy traffic in people and freight which will be required to justify the expenditure on a jet service. It is much more than the question of noise.
If the Hon. Member is so sure that jets no longer provide any problem to a residential community, perhaps he is going to get some jets in his backyard, and I invite him to come to Toronto and explain to the people there the benefit of having a jet airport in your neighbourhood.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, just a few words concerning this particular Bill. I was inspired by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) who made his case so clearly a few moments ago.
I do not think anyone can deny that there should be a public hearing in Toronto on this particular request since there is some concern. If there is no concern, then what is wrong with having public hearings? Surely the Government of Canada should not be afraid of having people comment on this legislation. Surely it is not afraid of the environmentalists who will probably appear before the hearings and talk about the migratory birds-which this Government has abandonned through cuts in the Department of the Environment. Surely the Government of Canada is not afraid of that type of criticism.
There are obvious concerns regarding this Bill, Mr. Speaker, and what the Government is going to do. I have some concerns

October 4, 1985
Toronto Island Airport
about the Government's policy regarding airports in Canada. Clause 3(1) of this Bill under the heading "Jurisdiction and Powers" is very interesting. It says:
The Commissioners shall have power to operate the Airport for and at the expense of the Commissioners or, where there is an agreement between the Commissioners and the Government of Canada with respect to the operation of the Airport by the Commissioners for the Government of Canada, for and at the expense of the Government of Canada during such period as is described in the agreement and on such terms and conditions as are specified in the agreement.
Clause 3(2) says:
Subsection (1) shall not be read or construed so as to prevent the Government of Canada from providing financial or other assistance to the Commissioners with respect to the operation of the Airport, whether or not there is an agreement between the Commissioners and the Government of Canada as described in that subsection.
That clause will perhaps become very common in future policies of this Government. We heard about that when the Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) brought the matter up during Question Period. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), under whose name this Bill was introduced, admitted that consultations were going on which would affect the policy of the Government with respect to someone other than the Government operating and financing airports. You can see where these two particular clauses are going to be used in the future by the Government to implement a policy whereby someone other than the Government will be asked to operate these small airports. Perhaps, in some cases, it will not just be small airports. This will be seen by the general public, correctly, to be a move by the Government to try and shift financial responsibility onto municipalities or local commissions in an effort to save money. In other words, it is very clear to the general public that you just cannot operate an airport in, say, Deer Lake or some part of British Columbia the way Transport Canada operates it at substantially less cost. The Minister should realize he cannot have it both ways.
In outlining this policy to the municipalities across this country, the Minister has really enacted a double standard. What he is saying is that the operating costs of the airport will be borne by the local commission or authority with the safety clause as I read it:
-shall not be read or construed so as to prevent the Government of Canada from providing financial or other assistance to the Commissioners with respect to the operation of the Airport-
However, there will certainly be no outright commitment of funds as far as the airport property is concerned. The Minister then turns around and says that as far as revenues associated with the operation of that airport are concerned, where a contact by a plane coming from the Pacific, the Atlantic or across the Northern Hemisphere is made with the air traffic control centre, there will be a charge. The airline pays an initial charge of $65 to contact air traffic control, and so on. However, the Minister is clearly saying that those revenues which currently go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund will remain as revenues to that fund and not be attributable to the operation of a particular airport. In other words, the airport will still have landing fees, yes, but it will not receive credit for these other fees collected on a daily basis by the Government.
All we need look at in this regard are some of the cases which went through the Supreme Court of Canada. Over the past five, six or seven years there were some U.S. airlines which did not land here in Canada, did not use our facilities at all, but made an inital contact by radio with Canadian authorities and they were charged by the Government of Canada for that contact. These airlines, mostly in the United States, then claimed that they did not really owe this money to the Government of Canada. I stand to be corrected, but I believe it was Trans World and-well, I know for sure it was Trans World but two other U.S. airlines as well which owed the Government of Canada something like $15 million. That issue had to go to court and as I understand it, and I cannot be sued for anything I say in this Chamber, they eventually paid the money they owed to the Government and the people of Canada. I believe they paid that amount, but they certainly owed the $15 million or $16 million. When an air traffic controller or air radio operator in a small airport makes an initial contact with a foreign air carrier he collects $65 for the Government and taxpayers of Canada. The air radio operator collects $45 for the people of Canada. It is incredible to think that the Bill for three airlines from the United States amounted to $15 million or $16 million over a period of four years and had to be collected through the courts.
The Minister of Transport intends to transfer the control of airports to local authority commissions in Canada and municipalities. However, he says, "We will not take into account these revenues that are generated by air radio and air traffic control. You can only have the landing fees". The reason is that the money goes into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Government of Canada.
It is absolutely atrocious. In fact, for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane), when one checks the Consolidated Revenue Fund listed under Moncton, New Brunswick, one sees that the funds amount to more money than the cost of air traffic and air radio control. The same can be said for airports in British Columbia, northern Ontario and southern Canada which make initial contact.
For example, when we look at marine radio operators in Gander, Newfoundland, there is an incredible amount of money involved. The Minister of Transport is going to transfer those airports in Moncton, Gander and elsewhere in southern Ontario and western Canada to commissions but he will not give them the revenues that come into those airports as a result of the air traffic controller or air radio operator. It is absolutely shameful. In fact, it is quite conceivable that one could make $2 million or $3 million a year at some airports in Canada if one took the money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and added it to the revenue of those airports.
If we look at the revenues for the airports listed in the Estimates, we see that it shows a deficit and that not one national or local airport is making any money at all. That is not true. Some of those airports are making significant amounts of money when one takes into account the revenues
October 4, 1985

generated from the example I have given concerning air traffic controllers and air radio operators. In fact, I could never understand why the unions representing air radio operators and air traffic controllers do not use that argument in bargaining because they perform a service that actually makes money for the Government of Canada.
When these clauses are to be used in other Bills to be presented in the House in relation to airports in Canada that the Government wishes to transfer to commissions or municipalities, the Government should tell the truth and give the airports all of the revenue that they deserve. Before doing so, the people in each community, as the people in Toronto, should be allowed a free and open debate through public hearings. We certainly should not be doing anything that the people in those areas do not want.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in this debate on Bill C-76. I must say that I stand with trepidation behind so distinguished a person as the Hon. Member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Baker) who has exhibited but a smidgen of the experience he has accumulated over the years with regard to transport matters.
Having said that, I shall attempt to make my own humble contribution to this debate. Let me say at the outset that we see an immediate dilemma facing the Toronto islands when we read Bill C-76. Bill C-76, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act is an Act to replace the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act, 1939 which is an Act to amend the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act of 1911. Even within the title of the Bill, we find the first and most pronounced difficulty that Members on this side-certainly in the Liberal Party-have with this exercise.
There is no recognition of the fact that we are not simply talking about a small class B airport operation in Toronto. This concerns a series of islands that represent the most important and critical recreation facility for the people who live in one of the most densely populated cities in Canada. For the people of Toronto, Bill C-76 is not just a Bill dealing with how an airport should be run and who should make decisions about such things as the kind of aircraft allowed, the number and frequency with which they land. While they are concerned about that aspect, they also see the islands as the last great important recreation area for millions of people in a city of concrete, steel, glass and diminishing green spaces. It is the last great important recreation area for them and their children.
It is with great regret that every Member from every part of this country wil discover that not a single iota, not a comma, a jot or a word has been dedicated to the preservation and recognition of the environmentally sensitive nature of the area on the islands surrounding this airport facility.
Bill C-76 could most kindly be described as a housekeeping measure. It is important from time to time to update Acts that go back to 1939 and 1911. But surely circumstances have
Toronto Island Airport
changes dramatically in the nearly 50 years since 1939 and surely circumstances have changed dramatically in the nearly 75 years since 1911 and that reality should be recognized. We in this Party believe that if the Minister is at all conscious of the importance of this facility to the people of Toronto he would agree to allow for public meetings in the City of Toronto so that those citizens may have input before this Bill receives final passage in the House.
It is not my objective to stop passage of the Bill or to suggest that there are not more efficient ways for the Harbour Commissioners to work. However, when we are talking about one of the last green spaces and most important recreational areas in that city, certainly there ought to be an opportunity for the people of Toronto to have a say and demand that the environmentally sensitive nature of that facility be recognized in this Bill and protected in law.
I suppose one of the good things about the way this airport has been run is that we have not seen large volume jet traffic cruising down into the heart and soul of the City of Toronto, splitting eardrums, wrecking the environment and abusing the sacred place. That has been a good thing. With this environment of deregulation, with this pronouncement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) in his paper Freedom to Move, if a company is fit, able and qualified it can fly with unfettered competition, which will be the new law of the land in the airline industry as soon as he gets his legislation before the House in January. If I were concerned about the unique nature of this Toronto Island Airport, if 1 had not been concerned before, I would be terrified now.
What do we find in this Bill, Mr. Speaker? Talk about doublespeak. We have the Bill saying the following:
Without restricting the generality of section 6, the Commissioners may, in a like manner and subject to the like conditions as in the case of by-laws made under The Toronto Harbour Commissioners' Act, 1911, make by-laws for the regulation and control of the airport and all persons engaged in the operation of Aircraft at the Airport, including by-laws prohibiting the landing or taking off of
(a) jet-powered aircraft-
There is provision in the Bill to give the Commissioners the right to make by-laws to prohibit the taking off or landing of jet-powered aircraft at this environmentally sensitive location.
A clause that gives the commissioners-I am sure the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate is pondering this-the right to prohibit the taking off or landing of jet-powered aircraft at the airport implicitly also gives them the right to allow the landing or taking off of jet-powered aircraft at the airport. Rather than say we are going to give to these commissioners in this era of deregulation permission to allow jet aircraft to land or depart at that airport, which up until now they have not done, the Government with doublespeak decides to write it in, giving them permission to prohibit such a thing from happening. Implicitly the commission, if it wants, under this Bill, via Clause 7 under by-laws, theoretically, can allow jet service into that airport, can allow that sanctuary to be violated, can allow this green place, our migratory birds, this recreational complex, which has become the womb of those who care about

October 4, 1985
Toronto Island Airport
God's green earth and a city surrounded by concrete, steel and glass, to be violated.
I come from Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. In Newfoundland we do not have a lot of concrete, steel, glass and high-rises. We have a lot of green space, God's fresh air, forest and blue sky. We have a continuing compassion and empathy for those people who have been denied the abundance of God's green earth that has been given to us. There is a special sympathy and a deep anger and frustration that I feel and see because the kind of thing we can take for granted in Newfoundland is not even recognized in Bill C-76. It is a tragedy.
What else does this Bill fail to deal with? This Bill has given the commissioners, approved by the majority of the Toronto City Council, the ability to move in, to take land and property and expropriate it away from entities in this environmentally sensitive area. You may say that is quite normal, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of commission should have the power to expropriate. Perhaps it might be. But there is no power of appeal. The collective will and voice of six million people will not have an opportunity to be heard under the Expropriation Act. You ought to read the Bill, Sir. There is no power to appeal. That is the reason the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), who I think has earned a place of distinction in Canada as the most ardent and genuine-and those two words together are quite a testimony to the Member-environmentalist in this House, perhaps in this land, demands, before this Bill be given final reading in this Chamber that the Standing Committee on Transport be struck and a sub-committee go to Toronto to engage in public hearings so people in that city can be heard. The Minister himself and his officials should make themselves available for public meetings in the City of Toronto.
I do not think the message has got through. I do not think the Canadian public is yet aware that after January when the Minister brings in the legislation, he wants the Transport Committee to study his paper "Freedom to Move" in two months, which is an impossible task. It took the Minister and his officials 15 months to write the paper "Freedom to Move". With all the resources of Transport Canada, the resources of the Government of Canada, the resources in the Budget to hire specialists, consultants and airplanes to fly him all over the land, it took 15 months to write the paper. Yet the Minister advised us last week that he will give the Transport Committee two months to study it. He wants a report by November 30. Here I see the calendar in front of me stating that it is October 4. This House has not even provided a reference yet for that committee to study the Bill.
We have not even begun to look at the implications of deregulation, yet we are supposed to report by November 30. Something is being rushed through for some reason. I suspect that once Canadians fully appreciate what unfettered fire enterprise in this proposed deregulation package of the Minister will mean, there will be an outcry from one end of the country to the other. Canadians know that we are not a branch plant of the United States and that if something works in the United States, it will not necessarily work in Canada. Canadians know we are a nation of 25 million people spread over a
huge beautiful geographic land mass and that you cannot impose an American formula on a Canadian problem and expect the problem to go away.
Deregulation in the United States has meant that 350 communities have had reduced air service, 105 communities have lost air service entirely. It has also meant that environmentally sensitive areas in the heart of major urban centres, like Toronto Island Airport, have been changed forever because the pressure of an unregulated air industry will result-mark my words-in companies seeking to extend the facilities on Toronto Island and will seek to land jet aircraft right in the heart of that environmentally sensitive area.
Every Canadian whether living in British Columbia or Cape St. George, the tip of the Port au Port peninsula on the west coast of Newfoundland, or in the riding of the Member sitting opposite, of Burin-St. George where the great and beautiful community of Rose Blanche or Port aux Basques, Grey River, Fran$ois or Ramea, ought to stand and make his or her voice heard to ensure that his or her right to see something that belongs to all of us, something that is part of the character and part of the riches afforded to us as Canadians that exist downtown in Toronto not be violated by a Government insensitive to the historic concern and historic level of Torontonians for this environmental space on their doorsteps in the heart of Canada's largest city.
It is no secret that many Newfoundlanders have been persuaded with great difficulty over the decades to leave their native Newfoundland and to lend their talents to the development of Toronto. Despite their reluctance to leave Newfoundland and to provide their skills to the great Province of Ontario, particularly to the great City of Toronto, on occasion they have done so. Perhaps that city would not be so great without the expertise of Newfoundlanders. I have had the pleasure of talking with fellow Newfoundlanders living in the City of Toronto. They make a contribution to the City of Toronto and to its province. When I ask them how they survive in that big, concrete jungle, or how they keep their sanity now that they were removed from salt water and fresh air, without exception they say: "I take a stroll along the shores of Toronto Island for a time of peace and solitude downtown where the environment still reigns supreme in a modern jungle; that is what helps me maintain my sanity".
It was in recalling those conversations that I decided to rise in my place this Friday afternoon to beg, urge and demand of the Minister that the people of Toronto, including my expatriate colleagues from Newfoundland, have an opportunity to be heard before the Bill receives its final reading in the House.
Some Hon. Members; Hear, hear!


Mr. Hicks:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) for setting the record straight about the great City of Toronto. Earlier today the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) made some scathing, unfortu-
October 4, 1985

nate, deflammatory comments about that city. I did not have the opportunity to rise on that occasion because comments and questions were not allowed. However, the record has been set straight by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe who used the word "sacred" in his comments. That was more than I had even hoped for, but I appreciated it very much. Also he used the words "great City of Toronto" and "great Province of Ontario". Again I thank him for that.
I was born and raised in Toronto. I am very proud of that city. It is the greatest and safest city in North America. I assure the Hon. Member that his concerns about the people of Toronto, including transplanted people from the Province of Newfoundland, are appreciated very much. I do not think their interests will be jeopardized because much thought has gone into the formulation of this Bill. If the birds of the island and the people of the City of Toronto were to be jeopardized, the Bill would not have been put forward.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I did not hear the Hon. Member's last few comments. I do not know whether he asked a question at the end of his remarks, as I was distracted for a moment. In any event, in case there was any doubt in his mind, the Liberal Party has always believed in the City of Toronto. That is why we in the Liberal Party have done so much over the years to contribute to its growth.
We in this Party look to the future. Actually it is similar to what is said in Newfoundland-if one builds a wharf and builds it strong, it will withstand the biggest storm. When that hurricane of last week took a look at Newfoundland wharves, it went the other way. The same is true with Liberals and their approach to Toronto. We have worked hard for Toronto. We believe in Toronto. We know that Toronto, given the chance soon, will indicate that it believes in us.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. It deals with the Government's decision to move ahead on the possibility of jet aircraft on Toronto Island. We have heard much talk around the Chamber today about the wonderful City of Toronto. We also know of the great struggle on the part of the people of Toronto to keep Toronto Island as a haven for people who want to get away from the city. These people hop on the ferry to take part in Caribana or any number of activities which-and I must admit that Toronto is a suburb of Hamilton-make Toronto a great place within the Province of Ontario.
Does the Hon. Member feel that the Conservative Members of Toronto in fact believe that jet aircraft should be allowed at the Toronto Island Airport without any public hearings, without any response from the people of Toronto or without any chance for comment, not only by the island residents who fought long and hard to save their own community, but also by literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who use Toronto Island as a summer refuge? Does the Hon. Member think that those people should be consulted before we allow jet aircraft to take over what is currently a beautiful recreational oasis in the Toronto area?
Toronto Island Airport


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to attempt to answer that question. Of course it is a very difficult one. I am a humble fellow from Newfoundland who took the trouble to research and spend many hours of preparation to understand the impact of the Bill on Toronto. While I can give the Hon. Member my views on its impact, I have great difficulty in giving her the views of Conservative Members from Toronto.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Because we have not heard from them.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is right. In the interests of solidarity between the constituents of Toronto and their Conservative Members, I will send them a copy of my comments. I hope it will help them focus on and appreciate this environmentally beautiful, rare area in this part of Canada. I hope they will stand and be heard. Once they understand the feelings of their constituents, they will ensure that this area is preserved, protected and enhanced as an environmentally sensitive area for future generations of Canadians.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, has the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) ever landed at the Toronto Island Airport?


Brian Vincent Tobin: No, Mr. Speaker. There are many unique and profound experiences which I have not yet had. One of them is landing at Toronto Island Airport. I am saving it for a particularly black and depressing time when I really need my spirits lifted.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member wants to talk out this Bill until four o'clock so that we cannot get on to dealing with Canagrex.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Oh, you want it to pass right now?


Sheila Maureen Copps: What are you, the House Leader?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Sometimes; more than I can say for you. At any rate, is the Hon. Member aware that there is a lease on the land which prohibits the use of jet aircraft?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that. However, I am also aware that for some reason the Toronto Harbour Commissioners are given the power to prohibit jet aircraft from taking off or landing at that airport according to Clause 7 of the Bill.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I understand that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I would say that that is a double-edged sword. If they have the power to prohibit jet aircraft from landing and taking off, they now implicitly have the power to permit it. That is something new being introduced in the Bill and it brings into question whether or not that airport will be maintained in its current status. When the deregulatory pressure begins to be felt, when airlines are suddenly competing for every buck, and when people are demanding an opportunity for jet aircraft to land at and take off from that airport, that

October 4, 1985
Toronto Island Airport
new power, along with the ability to expropriate with no right of appeal, brings into question whether we will see some pressure to expand the facility and do away with that womb of environmental beauty in the heart of Toronto. It also brings into question whether we will see an attempt by airline companies to start flying jet aircraft into that airport. Those are my concerns.
I am well aware of the history of the airport and of that piece of land. I say that it has been a proper one. Whether it be under a Liberal administration, a Conservative administration or an NDP administration, it is irrelevant, because Mother Nature is non-partisan; she does not care. Migratory birds do not vote. If the Government allows that airport to be expanded and allows jet aircraft to land and take off from that airport, all I can say is that that Party is not for the birds.


Steven W. Langdon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to briefly come to the defence of my colleage from Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) who after all gave Toronto the greatest possible compliment, that somebody from Saskatchewan could give, when he said that he wanted to plant it so that it would look like a wheat field. That is not an insult, Mr. Speaker. If he had wanted to insult he could have quoted people from Windsor who talk about a travel contest there in which they offer as first prize a week in Toronto and as second prize two weeks in Toronto.
I want however to finish with my question which is, in view of my limited experience with Newfoundland-


Paul Wyatt Dick: You have been lucky so far.


Steven W. Langdon: I want to ask the Hon. Member how he is going to manage, after these paeons of praise for this marvellous City of Toronto, to return successfully to his constituency and survive.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, because we were the last into this country, in 1949, and because we came in of our own volition, after two votes, Newfoundlanders are not Canadians by accident of geography, or accidents of history. They are Canadian by choice. I say this sincerely. After having chosen this country, not having been forced into it by accident of history or geography but having made the choice to be a Canadian, despite his deep pride and often heard pride in his own province, in his people, in his culture and in his history, no one will ever find a Newfoundlander who will hesitate to stand up and say that he is proud of every part of this country, every foot between the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Victoria. I have no trouble going back to Newfoundland and telling them that on their behalf I spoke of our pride in this great country, every damned part of it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is over. Resuming debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak not only in defence of the City of Toronto,
but to issue a challenge because many of those on the government side of the House know that we in the Liberal Party were somewhat reduced in number after the last federal election. Our Toronto caucus numbers six. Some of us have had experience working in Toronto as Members of the Legislature and have known and loved and continue to love the City of Toronto. There are also Members, like the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), who have taken the time on behalf of the Liberal caucus under the extremely able and effective leadership of Charles Caccia to explore the issue of the Toronto Island Airport Bill which is before us today. What I cannot understand, and perhaps what some of the Government Members could elucidate to me and to the people of Canada, is where are their voices on this important issue of the literally dozens of Conservative Members who have been elected from the City of Toronto? Where are their voices on an issue which could change the very nature, the very direction and the very quality of life on Toronto Island? Where are the voices from downtown Toronto? Who is speaking up for the residents of the Toronto Island area? I can tell the Government Assistant House Leader that I have landed at the airport on Toronto Island; I have flown from the airport on Toronto Island and I for one would object vehemently if jets were allowed to land at that airport without any public consultation and if further expropriations were allowed to be carried out without any recourse or any public appeal.
Environmental concerns and the issue of quality of life were addressed very effectively by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) but we have not heard from the Conservatives. We have not heard from the dozens of Conservative Members in the City of Toronto. In fact, the responsibility to defend the interests of the people of Toronto is being placed in the hands of the Liberal Members from Hamilton, Newfoundland and from other areas across the country because we do not hear for the Toronto Members.
I can understand why the Toronto Members did not want to talk about "tunagate". I can understand why the Toronto Members did not want to talk about the Canadian Commercial Bank. After all, their Government had been caught in billion dollar booboos which were going to cost the taxpayers of Canada dearly. However, on the issue of the Toronto Island Airport we have a question, a Bill, an amendment which should bear the scrutiny and the discussion of every Toronto member of the Conservative Party but, as usual, they have been muzzled. They are sitting on the sidelines; they cannot enter the debate; they have nothing to say on an issue of extreme and urgent public importance within the City of Toronto. Therefore it falls upon us, and upon myself from the City of Hamilton. When I called Toronto a suburb of Hamilton I was not joking. Our football team is better. We are going to make it to the Grey Cup. Unfortunately our Toronto cohorts are not going to have the same privilege. We hope, and I think all of us are hoping and praying, that the City of Toronto will make it when it comes to the World Series. We are looking for the big number two to come down some time this weekend, Mr. Speaker. However, we also expect that
October 4, 1985

when it conies to issues that involve a major change in public policy for airports which have a national, local and provincial significance that we would have at the very least expected some kind of contribution, some statement, some appeal by the Members from the City of Toronto to say to the Government, "We don't want expropriation without appeal. We don't want jet airplanes without public input. We want to give the people of Toronto a chance to have a say in this extremely major change in public policy as it deals with the Toronto Island Airport and in particular we want the beauty and the environment and the tranquility of Toronto Island saved for future generations".
As usual, Mr. Speaker, the Members have been muzzled. The Progressive Conservative Government Members came to Ottawa in droves, 211 they numbered on September 4, and are rapidly falling like flies as Ministers go. They go down. The former Minister of Fisheries is muzzled; the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) and the Party Leader are muzzled; the Toronto Members are muzzled. Mr. Speaker, where are the Conservatives? Where are those 211 Members who were sent to Ottawa to defend the interests of the people of Toronto? Why is it that we in the Liberal Party, small though we may be in number, and I, the Member for Hamilton East, are here in this House defending the interests of the people of the City of Toronto when not one Toronto Progressive Conservative MP has stood up to speak on this Bill?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Where are your Toronto Members?


Sheila Maureen Copps: There is a question to the people of Canada. Where are the Toronto Conservatives?


An Hon. Member:: Bring on the Tories.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We may be small in number but we will continue to defend their interests and we challenge those Conservatives to get off their backsides, to get into the House of Commons and start talking about the real issues.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Hnatyshyn, (for the Minister of Transport), seconded by Mr. Beatty, moves that Bill C-76, an Act respecting the operation of the Toronto Island Airport by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Textile Industry


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   TEXTILES ADVISABILITY OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond) moved: that
In the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of supporting the textile industry by:
1.	using the provisions of section 19 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade to impose a global quota on the importation of textiles; and
2.	amending section 11 of the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act to extend the
program to layoffs which represent 10 per cent of the employees in a particular
branch or division of a company and not only to those layoffs involving at least
10 per cent or 50 employees of the total establishment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, thank you for putting my motion before the House. My purpose is to increase the Government's awareness of the situation in the textile and garment industry.
Mr. Speaker, this is an industry that I know and support, and I know what I am talking about because I spent thirteen years there. I also would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about my beautiful part of the country. The Saint-Fran?ois River flows across the entire breadth of the riding of Drummond, which is located a few kilometers south of the St. Lawrence River. It is situated between Montreal and Quebec City, if one takes the Trans-Canada Highway, and between Trois-Rivieres and Sherbrooke if one is travelling on Highway 55. The location of Drummond between these four cities puts it right in Quebec's heartland.
The riding has a population of 75,000, spread over 28 municipalities and an area of 1,675 square kilometers.
The majority of the population is francophone, but the cultural, social and economic contribution of various ethnic groups in the region is still significant.
An industrial profile of Drummond would not be complete without a reference to the textile industry, because in the past, the industry's contribution to the economy of the riding was a very important one. Nevertheless, companies such as Celanese, Dominion Textile, Consoltex, Textile Dionne, Teinture Elite and several other enterprises in Drummondville continue to provide a living for the people in this riding.
The total number of jobs that depend on the textile and garment industry in the riding exceeds 5,000, which shows that the industry is still responsible for the major part of the region's economy.
To illustrate the importance of an industry like Celanese in the Drummondville area, I can inform Hon. Members that this compagny generates a payroll of $25 million a year, that it pays $500,000 in taxes to the City of Drummondville, that it contributes over $100,000 per year through its budget for
7362

October 4, 1985
Textile Industry
social activities, and that furthermore, it has just spent over one million dollars converting its heating plant to natural gas. It has also just invested another million in two silos for storing chemical products used in manufacturing yarns.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the motion before the House is to provide some solutions to the problems of the textile and garment industry and to ensure its protection and survival. As we all know, jobs are being threatened by imports from the semi-industrialized countries of the Pacific Rim.
As evidence of this I would mention the numerous plant closures such as Wabasso last March and, quite recently, Dominion Textile's announcement concerning the shutdown of two plants in Beauharnois and Valleyfield, with the resulting loss of 850 jobs. According to company spokesmen, the main reason for closing those plants was the ever growing clothing imports from low wage countries.
Mr. Speaker, the number of imported clothing units was 160 million in 1981 as compared with 244 million last year. In fact, on a per capita basis we let in twice as many imports as the United States do.
It is obvious that rising imports far exceed Canada's economic growth. It is an increase of 45 per cent, whereas over the past five years the market has expanded by only 1.5 per cent a year, and it is now at the 540 million unit level.
Higher imports in the last ten years have led to 35,000 fewer jobs in Canada. In addition those imports now account for more than 60 per cent of our domestic market. American textile industries have an advantage because most manufacturing operations in foreign countries are done in American branch plants or by companies under their control in developing countries. The net result is that they improve their financial situation through profits from foreign operations.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a few examples of countries which did not hesitate to come to the rescue of their industries. Over the past 15 years the Japanese have intervened directly in that sector to prevent the decline of their industries, and their annual textile and clothing imports have gone up by only 2 per cent. Think about it, Mr. Speaker, 2 per cent in Japan against a 45 per cent increase in four years in Canada. Many Japanese textile manufacturers have moved their operations to Southeast Asia where labour is cheap. Those manufacturers can then ship their exports through other Asian countries. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give you more examples about the Japanese. Here, from Global Textile Industries Figure 48, Annex 7: preferential financing at interest rates of 2.6 to 7.6 per cent for ten years; unit production costs financed by the national Government to the tune of 50 to 70 per cent, not to mention deferred payments, grants and what have you. And then Figure 52 reveals that Japanese companies have set up shop in various countries of Western Asia, such as Taiwan where they have 47 plants or industries,
Hong Kong with 18, Korea with 47, Thailand with 32, and so on down the list.
There is also the European Economic Community, or EEC, also called the Common Market, which includes 13 European countries. Their per capita textile imports have gone down from $11.80 in 1980 to $8.30 in 1984 and their clothing imports from $22.30 in 1980 to $18.40 in 1984. Incidentally, during the Multifibre Arrangements III negotiations, the EEC asked for more restrictions on imports. They proposed a 1 per cent increase and advised the European Commissioner that they would take unilateral action if other countries refused their proposals. Both the industries and the unions agreed to ask for better protection against low cost suppliers. The employers and the unions found a 6 per cent rate increase for imports excessive in view of an estimated yearly market increase of between 1 and 1.5 per cent and demanded that the rate of increase for imports be lower than the rate of increase of the market to allow European businesses to make some slight progress. The unions also suggested that the EEC fine the member countries which would authorize imports in excess of their quotas and that unused parts of quotas no longer be carried over or transferred.
Imports from the main suppliers were to decrease by 10 percent over five years. The mechanism to prevent sudden increases and designed to stop an excessive inflow of imports, whatever the level of quotas, was agreed to at the same time as arrangements for an anti-fraud clause.
Mr. Speaker, this information comes from an article published in the autumn 1983 issue of the periodical International Organization.
Certain countries try to get around the rules of the MFA. For instance, Hong Kong buys and sells used quotas from other countries. Another means is to use a third country which does not have any quota agreement. For example, Mr. Speaker, the allocation cost for selling a quota for a pair of jeans was 55 per cent of the allocation price of these same jeans.
We can see that most textile and clothing producing countries provide assistance of various types to their own industries.
Through the CIRB, the federal Government has granted subsidies of $108 million and $70 million respectively to the textile and clothing industries. During the last 10 years, the textile industry has invested $2.4 billion to modernize its equipment. Incidentally, the federal Members of Parliament had an opportunity last August to visit the textile, clothing and shoe industries in Quebec and Ontario during a tour organized by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens).
Like many EEC countries and semi-industrialized or developing countries, Canada must develop a federal textile and clothing policy as quickly as possile to determine the rules
October 4, 1985

of the game. Industries in these sectors in Canada are not asking for any subsidies. They want the Government to reduce the quotas and to give them a larger share of the domestic market.
Let me remind the House that the clothing industry is a very fragmented and labour-intensive industry and that between 24 and 40 cents out of every dollar produced by the sales of a clothing item go back to the worker. I think it would be difficult to find many other industrial sectors where the cost of creating one job is so low. On the other hand, the textile industry is very complex and capital-intensive. It costs at least $300,000 to create one job in this industry. Manpower costs represent only 15 percent of total costs. In addition, the western petro-chemical industry is dependent on the textile industry for $100 million in sales each year. This industry provides jobs for 75,100 people and the clothing industry gives employment to 99,000 workers in Canada. Also, it is estimated that 275,000 additional jobs in Canada are indirectly related to these industries.
Our industries have trouble competing against countries where wages are low and workers receive an hourly wage of between 21 cents and $1.50 an hour. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Government to state its policies as soon as possible. The Multifibre Agreement was extended in 1977, and again in 1981. Each time, Sections 3 and 4 remained unchanged. In the 1977 Protocol extending the agreement, the parties thereto however allowed the possibility of jointly agreeing on reasonable temporary adjustments on specific points in given cases. The 1981 Protocol was worded in a more liberal way still, and it increased the extent to which importing countries could restrain importats under Sections 3 and 4.
The 1981 Protocol allowed importing countries to align their levels of importation on the domestic consumption growth rate, in order to determine market disruptions. Further, the Protocol enabled the parties to reach an understanding based on a level of positive growth lower than that provided for in Schedule B of the MFA in exceptional cases where there was a recurrence or intensification of market disruption. It also authorized any mutually acceptable agreement for reasons of flexibility in cases where the generous use of quotas with a very high level of restrictions represents an important share of the market. Finally, the 1981 Protocol provided for an "anti-increase" mechanism. It left the contracting parties quite free to negotiate agreements to resolve important difficulties arising from the repeated under-utilization of significant levels of restrictions that threaten to result in serious and real damage.
To that end, I have thought out a few scenarios. A 200 million unit per year quota would enable us to create 6,500 jobs more than in 1984. A 175 million unit quota would enable us to create 17,900 jobs in the textile and clothing industries.
Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian textile industry, their share of the Canadian market has declined from 43 per cent in 1981 to 37 per cent in 1984. This is a good enough reason to invoke Section XIX of the GATT Agreement. They
Textile Industry
recognize that the increase in importation depresses activity in the primary textile industries which supply raw materials to the clothing industry. Further, it should be noted that the textile industry and the clothing industry are dependent on each other as it was emphasized in a study made in 1985 by the Quebec Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Therefore, it is my view that the Government should impose an overall quota on imports from all sources under Section 19 of the GATT Agreement. Such action is self-explanatory, because when we negotiated the agreements we were not as tough as we should have been and our legitimate rights, as described in the Multifibre Agreement, have not been adequat-ly defended by the previous administration.
The use of Section 19 would abrogate the 21 bilateral agreements signed by Canada with fabric and clothing exporting countries. Those agreements would be replaced by an overall ceiling on clothing imports from all sources, whether from under-developed countries, newly industrialized nations or nations with state controlled or market-oriented economies.
The Government has to make sure that existing and future quota agreements are administered and negotiated by taking advantage of all the international rights Canada has under the Multifibre Agreement.
Such instruments are subject to the international rules grouped in the various GATT codes. Their legitimate use has nothing to do with protectionism. Within its jurisdiction and under the international agreements that were ratified, the Government has the right and the responsibility to do so.
This Government must develop a policy designed to provide leadership, to create a framework and conditions for development aimed at promoting a climate of confidence in which the industry will invest, and undertake or continue the manufacturing of competitive products.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words concerning the second part of the motion, which is designed to amend the legislation on manpower adjustment benefits, Chapter 89 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. In fact, Section 11(c), as now worded, is prejudicial in my view to certain workers in the textiles, clothing and shoe industries.
As it now stands, one of the requirements before employees are certified is that the number of employees in the plant has been reduced through lay-offs by at least 10 per cent or, if the reduction is lower than 10 per cent, by at least 50 employees.
Mr. Speaker, this is unfair for some of the workers because generally it is a branch or a department of the plant rather than the whole plant that is closed. This means that some workers cannot be registered under that legislation. We should not forget that this legislation comes under the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) and its purpose is to protect older workers who have been permanently laid off in sectors of operations designated by the federal Government. They do not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits and they have no

October 4, 1985
Textile Industry
prospect of getting a job. Those benefits to be considered as a continuation of income are a last resort adjustment for older workers who on account of their age and their qualifications do not qualify for the manpower employment program and find it very difficult to cope with the new conditions.
The program is of valuable assistance to those who are more deeply affected by the shutdown of plants and the loss of jobs. It is an answer to some rather difficult conditions and helps people who have no other alternative. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it does not apply to millions of people since, according to the most recent report from October 1st to December 31st, 1984, there were 198 applications for certification of which 150 only were approved and 48 were disallowed mainly for the above-mentioned reason.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment seems to me to be important and I ask the Government to act quickly since the shutdown of other plants in the textile, clothing and footwear industries has been announced.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault). At the outset, as he launched into a description of his constituency, I started wondering if he was delivering the Address in reply to the Throne Speech. But I soon came to realize that in describing his constituency, he was in fact outlining how important the textile industry was in that area.
The textile industry, Mr. Speaker, is also very important for the constituency I represent. Now, in the western part of that constituency, as you get closer to the National Capital, textile industry nothing to write home about, but in the eastern part of my constituency, in cities like Alexandria, Hawkesbury, l'Original and others, that industry does play an important part. In the towns of Hawkesbury and Alexandria, and other town as well, we have textile plants such as Amoco, Consoltex, Fibre World, White Sister, Canadian Uniforms, Canadian Buttons, Texturon, Wonder Bra, and a few others-those manufacturers are going to be angry at me for not mentioning their names, but it was not intentional-we have a lot of those plants in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, and they bear heavily on the employment picture for my constituents.
The footwear industry also plays an important part in my constituency, and I feel it would be appropriate for me to dwell on that textile related subject for a minute or two this afternoon.
As everyone knows, footwear quotas will be lifted in a few weeks' time, on the 30th of November, and as the deadline looms, the Secretary of States for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and his counterpart the Minister for International Trade still have made no statement to the House with respect to the footwear industry. This is most inappropriate as that industry employs 350 people in the Glengarry-Prescott-Russell constituency. Over the last few days, I have received 131
letters from employees asking for my help so that they don't get laid off as a result of this Conservative Government's carelessness, and I wish to take this opportunity to raise the matter in the House, as it is of utmost importance for my constituents.
Having said that, I will get back to the file on the textile industry itself, before you call me to order, Mr. Speaker, since the file on the footwear industry is similar but not quite the same. Let us say that ... Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt those Conservative Members who are saying goodbye to everybody, but I would like to continue with my remarks.
In my riding, aside from the 350 jobs in the footwear industry which I have already mentioned, there are some 1,500 or 1,600 jobs in the textile industry. These too are very important for my constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I have here some letters from employees of textile companies in my riding who are asking my help so that they, too, can keep their jobs, which they feel are threatened by this Progressive Conservative Government's inaction. But I am pleased to see that some Progressive Conservative Members in this House share the view that the Government should do something to protect the jobs of the textile workers; I am pleased as well to know that the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault) is among those who think that the Government should move and help people in his riding and within the whole industry.

Last summer during the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party made a number of promises which 1 believe I may have raised with you once or twice previously. More particularly, it made a number of promises to the textile workers. I would like to read some of them to you, Mr. Speaker. The first promise was to "promote fair trade but not free trade". Would you believe that the Conservatives said that last summer, Mr. Speaker? Second, "promote stability through the rigorous enforcement of our existing international rights and obligations including, if necessary, the establishment of global quotas and a controlled increase of import volumes". That is a promise made by the Conservatives last summer. I know that the Hon. Member for Dollar (Mr. Weiner), who is listening attentively, has taken note of that particular promise which was made in Sherbrooke, would you believe, Mr. Speaker, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), then Leader of the Conservative Party? I am sure that other Hon, Members might want to speak on this subject in the future and say whether or not they agree with promise No. 2 made by the Leader of the Conservative Party last summer. The third promise made by the Conservative Party, and again I read from the "Book of Promises", "review Canada's existing obligations in order to ascertain whether modifications should be pursued". A fourth promise was, "promote specialization in those areas with the best prospects for long-term economic viability". The fifth promise was, "promote the nationalization
October 4, 1985

of Canadian production through the use of duty remission schemes so that Canadian producers can work with low-cost foreign producers, combining Canadian expertise in fashion, marketing, and financial techniques with foreign products in pursuit of other markets in the world". That is a long-winded promise which I have read on a number of occasions and I am still not quite able to decipher what exactly it means except that it seems to contradict promise No. 2. Of course, that would not be the first time that Conservative promises were not consistent. The only consistency in Conservative promises has been the fact that they have been so inconsistent.
Promise No. 6 was to "promote the auctioning of import quotas in order to provide funds for the modernization of the industry". Promise No. 7 was to "decrease the use of grants".
I wonder how one would reconcile that with promise No. 4. However, Tories can sometimes rationalize these things. Promise No. 8 was to "increase the use of tax incentives to reward success, including the broadening of the tax definition of research and development". I remind you of promise No. 7, Mr. Speaker, which I read a few seconds ago. You can see how consistent that is. The ninth promise was to "promote the greater partipation by representatives of the industry in the formulation of textile and apparel policy". I will stop right here, Mr. Speaker, because 1 think it is important to discuss promise No. 9. As you recall, that promise talks about consultation with industry. 1 want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a letter written in December, 1984, by the Moderator of the Canadian Textile Labour-Management Committee of the Industrial Relations Department of the University of Laval in Quebec City to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). The Reverend pointed out that he had been trying to get a meeting with the Minister for six months and never could meet him. The promise was that the Conservative Party would consult with the textile industry. Yet, six months later, they did not have the time to meet with the people who had a lot to do with that industry. I think this could be interpreted by some as being inconsistent.
Promise No. 10 was to promote diversification of the economic base in those areas which are highly dependent on these industries. I represent a riding which is highly dependent on that industry. Since the Conservatives have been in power, they have been cutting off grants and cancelling program after program which could assist the constituency I represent in diversifying into other businesses. Not that there is anything wrong with those people or those businesses now being operated, but of course we want to diversify our economic base. We have been trying to do exactly what promise No. 10 says we are supposed to do but the Conservatives cut off the money. It was very, very difficult to live with that promise, Mr. Speaker.
Promise No. 11 was to create training programs to assist workers in adapting to technological change in the textile sector.
That is the list of promises made by the Conservative Party regarding the textile and apparel industry. This, of course,
Textile Industry
comes from a campaign document released in Sherbrooke last year. When I decided to run for office, Mr. Speaker, an elderly gentleman said to me: "When you run for office, you should ask yourself what happens in case you win." Not what happens if you lose, Mr. Speaker. If you lose, you do not have to deliver on the campaign promises. What you are supposed to remember is what happens in case you win. Maybe the Tories should have remembered that during the last election campaign. Maybe they should have asked themselves what if they have to deliver on these promises. How are they going to do it? Will they be able to deliver on all these promises, one contradicting the other? Will they be able to increase grants and reduce grants to the same industry at the same time? Highly unlikely, Mr. Speaker. Will they be able to deliver on a set of campaign promises costing $20 billion, 113 of which were to spend more money, five to spend less, two to increase revenues, 26 to decrease revenues? Maybe they should have asked themselves the question: What happens in case I win? Had they done that, they would not be in the mess they are in today a little over a year after the election. Were there an election today they would be turfed out at the polls.


Some Hon. Members:: Dream on.


Don Boudria: I cannot wait for the next round of public polls and we will see what they have to say about the resignations and the scandal-a-day Tories sitting across the way.


Some Hon. Members:: Textiles!


Don Boudria: The team across the way say "next time".


Some Hon. Members:: No, textiles.


Don Boudria: Maybe next time they will come across the floor. In the meantime, I am going to keep talking about the importance of keeping their promises to the textile workers in my riding. Maybe the Tories do not want to talk about that. They are embarrassed and I do not blame them. I do not blame the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) for being embarrassed.


Mrs. Mailly:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: The Hon. Member will start again with the same old story, he will name each and everyone of us, in order to point out if we are here or not. He will give us a lot of nonsense. Why does he not stick to the subject? We are dealing with a very important matter that my colleague has fully explained. Then, let him stick to the subject rather than starting to mention our presence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is not a point of order as far as the Chair is concerned. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).

October 4, 1985
Textile Industry


Don Boudria: As you said, Mr. Speaker, it is not a point of order nor is it a good point. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) will nonetheless have an opportunity later on to talk about the textile workers of her riding and say how she intends to give her constituents the textile jobs that were promised by the Progressive Conservative Party. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have every intention of talking about textile, about the commitments this Government made to the people in my riding and elsewhere who work in that field.
Mr. Speaker, we know that over 80,000 people earn their living in the textile and footwear industry and that it is very important not only in the riding of Drummond, but also here in Ontario, in the riding of Glengarry-Russell-Prescott as well as in other ridings, although I think I have the greatest number of jobs in mine, with the exception perhaps of the city of Toronto, in Ontario.
We are told there are 44,000 workers in the textile industry in Quebec, close to 38,000 in Ontario, about 1,000 in Manitoba and in the rest of Canada, approximately 7,000 for a total of about 90,000 jobs of which 42 per cent in the province I have the honour and privilege of representing in the House of Commons, the province of Ontario. So, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious and important matter for the constituents of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
In conclusion, very briefly, I ask the Government to fulfil the promises he made to the textile and footwear workers. It will have trouble keeping them all because they contradict one another but it should at least act on those that will provide permanent jobs to my constituents and guarantee them their right to work. The people of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell are not to blame for the fact we have a Progressive Conservative government. Rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that I will keep on asking and demanding assistance from this Government for the textile, clothing and footwear industry of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and elsewhere.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burin-St.
George's (Mr. Price).


Mr. Joe Price (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was on my feet and it is normally the custom that all three Parties have the opportunity to participate in Private Members' hour. Is that no longer the custom or may I have the right to speak?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will know, of course, that the order of speaking in the House is entirely within the discretion of the Speaker. At this time, during Private Members' hour, I do not believe that Parties are recognized by the Speaker, but rather private members. However, for the Hon. Member's benefit, it was the intention of the Chair to recognize him after the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's.


Michael Morris Cassidy: With great respect, what you are saying-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Michael Morris Cassidy: -is that it is now going to be the policy of the Chair to prevent Members of the NDP from participating in Private Members' hour.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is effectively the situation you are creating, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The ruling has been made by the Chair.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The ruling has been made by the Chair, which is that the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's will speak. If the Hon. Member wishes time to speak, it may be in his interest to allow the Hon. Member to start his speech.


Michael Morris Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker is surely aware that Members have a right to speak for 20 minutes and that will take us to five o'clock. It seems to me, therefore, that it denies opportunities for any Members of this Party to participate and debate on this important subject, a subject which affects a large number of working people and consumers. As well, as spokesperson on the subject for my Party, I had prepared to participate. I find myself in some difficulty. I do not wish to challenge your ruling-


An Hon. Member:: Sit down, then.


Michael Morris Cassidy: If the Hon. Member would agree to speak for 10 minutes and let me speak for 10 minutes, then I would be happy to sit down at this point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to allow the Hon. Member to start his speech.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I move that the House adjourn.


Joseph Price: Mr. Speaker-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there a quorum?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, the Chair believes that there is a quorum.


Michael Morris Cassidy: On a point of order, I intend and my Party intends to raise this with the Speaker of the House of Commons, since you were standing in on his behalf. I think it is a serious matter and that an injustice is being done, not just to Members of my Party but also to the millions of Canadians who supported our Party in the election campaign.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Morris Cassidy: If in fact the Chair is abusing its power-
October 4, 1985


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Michael Morris Cassidy: -to stifle debate from my Party in this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Member for Burin-St.-George's (Mr. Price) has the floor.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is exactly what is happening, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Price: Mr. Speaker, I was getting rather apprehensive that perhaps I would not get a chance to speak. The Member seemed to be prepared to carry on for some time.
I should also remind the Member that there are people in my riding who would like to hear me make representations on their behalf. As well, I would like to make some comments for the record on behalf of the Department that I represent, the Department of Labour.
I want to begin by thanking and commending the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault) for bringing to the floor of the House an issue that is indeed important to him and I know very important to his constituents. I come from a riding, Burin-St. George's on the south coast of Newfoundland, that has seen many years of great hardship and many years of great anxiety as a result of the difficulties of a very fragile fishing industry. I can sympathize with my hon. friend and I can sympathize with the problems in the textile industry that he is so concerned about. 1 can assure him that I, as a Member of the House, do indeed understand his comments and concerns.
I am sure that he would agree that the adjustment issues that he refers to are not new only to his riding but indeed are relevant to all of Canada. What we do have to ensure is that our capacity to grow and prosper as a nation goes hand in hand with our ability to manage the attendant changes with care and sensitivity.
As you know, we are living through a difficult transition period brought about by many factors, including international competition and rapid technological change. The challenge is to manage this process in a way to ensure that the benefits and costs of economic adjustment are shared in a fair and equitable manner. In this regard, the Federal Labour Adjustment Benefits Program plays an important role in assisting those who are most adversely affected by plant closures and job loss, namely older workers with a long employment history in a designated industry and with little prospect of re-employment.
The Labour Adjustment Benefits Program provides payments to assist older workers who have been laid off as a result of import competition, industrial restructuring or severe economic disruption in a designated industry and/or region. The program provides last resort income maintenance benefits and is targeted to older workers who have exhausted their unemployment insurance entitlement and are generally not well suited to other adjustment programs. They are not readily employable in other industries or occupations because of their
Textile Industry
age and because their skills are usually specific to the industry from which they have been laid off.
In order to appreciate the intent of the program and its limitations, I would like to provide some background for the record. Labour Canada has maintained an adjustment assistance program since 1972. The program, initially referred to as the Adjustment Assistance Benefits Program, provided benefits to qualified individuals who have been laid off from the textile and clothing industries. This program was extended to workers in the footwear and tanning industries in 1978. Also in 1978, a total review of all Government adjustment measures was undertaken, resulting in the establishment of the Industry and Labour Adjustment Program, more commonly known as ILAP, in 1981.
The Labour Adjustment Benefits Act, promulgated on May 1, 1982, was created to include labour adjustment benefits as part of the ILAP program and to provide for a continuation of benefits from the four general designated industries; textiles, clothing, footwear and tanning. Other industries can be designated either generally or regionally, but to date, only the above-mentioned four industries have been designated generally.
The Act also provided for the establishment of a Labour Adjustment Review Board; the five-person tripartite board which certifies persons, whose lay-offs meet the criteria under the Act, as being eligible to apply to Employment and Immigration for benefits. The following are criteria for certification: the lay-off must have taken place in a designated industry and/or region within the time frame stipulated by the relevant order under the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act; the lay-offs must have been part of a workforce reduction of 10 per cent or 50 employees, which ever is less, within a 12 month period; the workforce reduction must have been caused by one or more of the economic factors causing the designation to be created.
The board's secretariat receives applications, investigates the circumstances and reports and makes recommendations to the board which then renders certification decisions. Qualification of certified individuals to receive Labour Adjustment Benefits is carried out by Employment and Immigration upon receipt of applications from the secretariat.
I think at this point it would be useful to note the conditions under which certified persons may receive benefits. They must be Canadian citizens resident in Canada. They must have worked 1,000 hours in each of 10 of the last 15 years in the relevant designated industry. They must be at least 54 years old at the time of the lay-off and not more than 65 years old. In cases of extreme financial hardship, a person may also qualify if their age and years of service at the time of lay-off add up to 80 years. Their unemployment insurance entitlement must be exhausted and they must have no present prospect of employment or have accepted employment that pays less than the average weekly insurable earnings before lay-off.
Benefits are payable until age 65 and are approximately equal to the unemployment insurance benefits. Benefits are administered by Employment and Immigration, which is then reimbursed by Labour Canada. Policy and designation recom-

October 4, 1985
Textile Industry
mendations are developed by the policy program of Labour Canada. In the case of regional designations, Labour Canada works in close conjunction with Employment and Immigration.
Hon. Members may recall that on April 10, 1984, the Cabinet approved the creation of a modified version of the Industry and Labour Adjustment Program. This program, administered jointly by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and Labour Canada, serves as a means of providing emergency assistance to communities experiencing severe economic difficulties of a structural nature resulting in serious disruption of employment.
As the financial resources of the modified Industry and Labour Adjustment Program are limited only the most severely affected communities, which meet the strict criteria of the program can be designated.
The modified ILAP provides two levels of assistance. Workers laid off in communities designated Level 1 are eligible for supplementary job creation measures, training and mobility assistance and CEIC portable wage subsidies. Designation at Level 2 of the program are made in accordance with the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act. In addition to CEIC adjustment measures, older workers laid off in designated industries in communities designated Level 2 are eligible for labour adjustment benefits.
A detailed review of the economic situation of some 240 communities throughout Canada have been made in connection with the modified ILAP. Following this review, the Cabinet on June 21, 1984, announced nine designations of communities most severely affected by massive and permanent lay-offs. Five of these nine designations were at Level 1 of the modified ILAP. These five Level 1 designations were to communities in Newfoundland, Quebec and British Columbia. Three additional designations have subsequently been made, one in Nova Scotia, one other in Newfoundland and an additional one in British Columbia.
Four communities have been designated Level 2 under the modified ILAP. These four communities are located in eastern Quebec and Labrador, and are totally dependent on the iron ore and asbestos industries.
All workers laid off in these designated communities can benefit from CEIC active adjustment measures. In addition to these measures, as I stated, older workers laid off by regional key industries designated under the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act can apply for labour adjustment benefits if they meet the criteria for eligibility.
As far as certification is concerned, the Labour Adjustment Review Board is authorized to grant certification where certain conditions, as outlined in Section 2 of the Act, have been met.
First, the employee must have been laid off. The legislation stipulates that the lay-offs must have taken place in order for certification to be granted. Although lay-offs may be scheduled for a specific date, for example, in a plant closing, the
Labour Adjustment Review Board is not empowered to grant certification nor to provide assessments as to whether certification will be granted in advance of the lay-offs.
Second, the establishment where the lay-offs took place must be part of a designated industry. The determination of whether a company is part of a designated industry is made by the Labour Adjustment Review Board, taking into account the effective dates of designation for the industry.
In the case of general designations, that is the textile, clothing, footwear and tanning industries, there are limitations on the components of the industries which are considered to be designated. These limitations are based on industry definitions, and in this context the board generally refers to the standard industrial classification codes describing the major industry groupings.
In the case of regional designations, the specific industries included are based on Cabinet decisions. Again the board refers to the applicable standard industrial classification codes. Industries can be designated retroactively, Mr. Speaker, and lay-offs which have taken place since the retroactive date of designation may be considered for certification. All existing general designations are retroactive to May 1. 1978.
To determine that the lay-off is within a designated industry and that it meets other requirements of the Act, the secretariat of the Labour Adjustment Review Board carries out a detailed review of the case on behalf of the Board. Notwithstanding that an industry is no longer designated, an employee may be certified provided that the lay-off took place while the industry was designated.
The third condition for granting certification requires that the number of employees in the establishment must have been reduced as a result of lay-offs in any 12 month period by at least 10 per cent or 50 employees, whichever is less. This criterion is designed to ensure that the intent of the legislation is maintained, that is, to offer adjustment assistance where major lay-offs have taken place and where such lay-offs are of a non-cyclical nature.
Since a reduction in the number of employees as a result of lay-offs is a necessary condition for certification, laid-off employees who have been replaced will not be eligible for certification. In cases where lay-offs are taking place but, because of recalls and new hiring, the employee level in a company is stable or rising, certification cannot be granted.
Should lay-offs in the order of 10 per cent take place during part of a 12 month period, additional employees laid off in the remainder of that 12 month period can be certified only where a further reduction in the number of employees is evident and where the other requirements of certification have been met. In considering lay-offs which have taken place during a second 12 month period, it is necessary to establish that the full requirements for certification have been met in relation to the new period. Reduction in the number of employees in an establishment due to retirements, dismissals or resignations cannot be taken into account when determining whether a reduction of 10 per cent or 50 employees has taken place.
October 4, 1985

The last condition for certification, which I want to mention, is that the lay-offs must have resulted from the economic adjustment which caused the industry to be designated. In the case of general designations, economic adjustment must be non-cyclical and must be the result of import competition or industrial restructuring including technological change pursuant to a policy or program of the Government of Canada.
In the case of regional designations, economic adjustment refers to the serious non-cyclical downturn in the industry causing economic disruption in the region and serious loss of employment in the region.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the Government's financial commitment, while limited, has increased significantly for this fiscal year. For 1985-86 the estimated funds are $20 million more than the amount in 1984-85, almost double the amount allocated last year. This is due to a significant increase in lay-offs in the textile and clothing industries in the Province of Quebec, and in response to the needs of workers in particular industries that have been designated on a regional basis.
I should also like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member for Drummond that this amount represents the largest allocation of funds in Labour Canada's 1985-86 estimates. That is a very significant point indeed.
Textile Industry
I want to assure the Hon. Member that his representations have been heard, are being listened to and are appreciated. As I have mentioned before, I have an industry, unfortunately an industry not designated under the Act, namely the fishing industry, and several references have been made in the House over the last couple of days with respect to that industry. Very few people have indicated that although the fishing industry has not been designated under the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act, Governments-this Government in particular-have responded to the needs of the industry by injecting additional new equity into a company called FBI of Newfoundland. As a result, that industry should now be in a position not only to stabilize but for the first time in five years show a profit. That is a Government responding to the needs of people.
I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Drummond for his representations and for giving me an opportunity to address it on behalf of the Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would like to advise the House that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) will have the floor the next time this matter is debated in the House.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.﻿HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 7, 1985