We will have a further 15 years.

Mr. Rae:

They will have no more 15 years.

The fact of the matter is that the House has not been allowed to examine the record. We do not know the effect of the interest rates. We have been given no calculations to tell us what is the costing of the various options. The governor of the Bank of Canada came before the committee and gave us only one option. Also he paraded the horrors of doing anything else or of considering any other policy. It is time for reform, not only of the financial policies of the government but of the accounting procedures of the House. They do not allow us as members of parliament to have the facts to enable us to judge the policies which the government puts before us. I cannot go back to the people in my riding and in conscience tell them that I know exactly why the government is doing what it is doing, other than the fact the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) tells us that it is the best thing for Canadians. I am

3208

February 13, 1979

Adjournment Debate

not satisfied with that, and I do not think the people of Broadview are.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. It being 10 p.m. it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.

The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) rises on a point of order.

Mr. Paproski:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps some member opposite could tell us what the business of the House will be tomorrow. Are we carrying on with Bill C-35 or Bill C-12?

Mr. Andres:

Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the consideration of Bill C-12 tomorrow.

[ Translation]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-6, an act to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):

Mr. Speaker, the issue I wish to deal with tonight arises out of questions which I directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) last Thursday having to do with the administration and enforcement of air navigation orders and standards. It is a very important issue. It is not new. It has been around for quite some time. It has become progressively more urgent, given the disturbing reports which have emanated from time to time over the last year or so.

In order to recap briefly, back in November, 1977, the MOT conducted an in-house investigation into air navigation

in northwestern Ontario. Perhaps the results are best described in the edition of the Globe and Mail of Monday, November 28, 1977. The article was entitled "Policing of Aviation Rules Inadequate, Violations Common, 2 Investigators Say". Briefly the article reads:

Aviation safety across Canada, and particularly in northwestern Ontario, is being jeopardized by the Ministry of Transport's failure to adequately enforce air regulations and take action against companies and individuals routinely engaging in illegal and dangerous practices, says a confidential report by two investigators for the federal ministry.

Calling for a complete overhaul of procedures, the investigators said top officials in Ottawa block the attempts of regional safety officers to put a halt to the operations of aviation firms that continually break the law and endanger the lives of employees and passengers.

The article goes on to cite various examples of political interference, and continues as follows:

Some of their other findings: -Overloading, falsification of log book entries, illegal and unsafe maintenance practices, flying below legal limits in bad weather, flying with insufficient flight instruments "and other illegal and dangerous practices too numerous to list here"-

Certainly that is a damning indictment. What action did the minister take? He indicated that Canada has one of the best records of air safety in the world. He authorized the hiring of 12 aviation inspectors, and he said that he would review the situation.

If we look at the situation, there is a shortage of 60 civil aviation air inspectors at the present time. Thus, if there were any hirings, it would be applied against the aggregate shortage of 60. We have the infamous Bolduc telex, which arose out of an inspector attempting to suspend the operation, wherein he was wired asking him to consider fully the political representations, the possible embarrassment to the Minister of Transport and any other political implications.

Then there was the question of the emergency locator transmitters which the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) outlined very adequately in the House just last week. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have another report which has surfaced again from within the Ministry of Transport and which again levels a very stinging indictment against the administration and the enforcement of air regulations. To quote briefly from this document:

Enforcement action is generally unco-ordinated and often haphazard.

There is no clear determination of the role inspectors are expected to play in the enforcement activity even in the case of inspectors specifically assigned to the enforcement function.

Many inspectors shy away from recommending administrative enforcement action-

Agents appointed by the Department of Justice are in the majority of cases inexperienced in aeronautics law and are afforded little support when preparing prosecutions.

The enforcement sector suffers from a severe lack of inspector resources. In some regions only a small percentage of complaints are actioned and in many cases such action is limited to conveying the information to the RCMP.

In the face of all this the Minister of Transport has the gall to say that he can reassure Canadians that the safety standards in Canada are among the highest standards of the world.

February 13, 1979

That may very well be, but these high standards are not being complied with.

We need a clear definition of the role, function and authority of our civil aviation inspectors. Clearly, we need a policy to recruit more personnel and, clearly, we must move immediately to upgrade the salary scales of these individuals to make their salaries comparable with their counterparts in the industry. The inspectors have been without a contract since 1975. The last time they had a salary adjustment was in July, 1976.1 submit that the Minister of Transport has failed to act responsibly and with despatch and that he has failed to provide Canadians with the degree of air safety which they deserve. He has been derelict in his duty, and if he does not have the courtesy to resign he should be removed from office, as far as I am concerned.

Is there any wonder why Canada's level of safety standards has slipped from seventh place to thirteenth place out of 18 nations throughout the world? That fact is not very comforting, and we must ask ourselves how many more lives must we lose before this government acts. People in this country are still shocked and horrified over the Cranbrook disaster, yet we see in the December 21 issue of the Calgary Herald this article entitled "MOT Cites Weak Rules in PWA Crash". It goes on to say in part:

Upgraded air traffic and air-worthiness regulations may prevent a recurrence of the Pacific Western Airlines crash at Cranbrook, B.C. last Feb. 11 that claimed 43 lives-

The official crash report by Ministry of Transport accident investigators cites several instances of weak regulations, primarily in regard to poor communications, that contributed to the crash-

That, sir, is not very comforting either. In fact it is very disturbing and very discomforting, and if this minister, as my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West indicated in the House last Thursday, is not guilty of wilful and wanton misconduct, then he is pathetically incompetent and should be removed.

Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary

of State): Mr. Speaker, I believe this issue was raised by the hon. member during the question period on February 8, and I believe they tried as well to raise something relating to this issue last Monday in the form of a motion under Standing Order 43.

What the hon. member forgets to remember is that in fact the minister responded to what was viewed as a potential difficulty in terms of trying to police what was happening in the airways by calling for and setting up the task force about which the hon. member has suggested he had some information provided to him even in advance of the results of that task force being made available to the minister. There was some suggestion at the time that, in fact, it was the report of that task force itself which was condemning what was happening in Canada. As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) indicated to the House that day, the task force had not yet drafted any report, and nothing had come to his attention that was the sort of information the hon. member was trying to put forward.

Adjournment Debate

The hon. member speaks of the decline of safety in Canada and of dropping from seventh place to thirteenth place in the world. I do not know where he gets his statistics, but my information is that Canada is within the top five in the world as regards safety. That is something of which to be rather proud.

If one were to accept the hon. member's suggestion that this government and particularly this minister have done nothing, that would be to negate the fact that the minister has set up the task force, recognizing that there is some difficulty with policing. We also have to recognize that in the air as with other modes of transportation, but particularly in the air, one has to rely upon the responsibility and professionalism of the people operating in that environment.

As one who has flown in the IFR environment on a number of occasions as pilot in command, I can say from that experience, and from experience with people who operate in the industry, that the level of professionalism and competence of the pilots in Canada is something we have no reason to worry about. There may be individual instances where transgressions take place and there may be some difficulty with policing these things, but surely the hon. member would not suggest we should have a policeman in every cockpit or a monitor on all the radio waves. There are difficulties inherent with the kind of policing he seems to be suggesting in order that the minister would be able to fulfil his function that actually go beyond reasonable suggestions that could be made by any member of this House.

The hon. member spoke of the ELT question. The ELTs were required by the department after consultation with the industry, and at the request of and with the approbation of the industry. I suggest they were removed only at a time when it was evident that they were a source of potential danger as opposed to being a help. This kind of action belies the position the hon. member is taking when he suggests that the Minister of Transport has been delinquent in his duties. I see that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):

Mr. Speaker, on January 23 I raised with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the matter of the speech of the president of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, delivered in Ottawa on January 10, at the regular quarterly meeting of the council. At that time the Prime Minister indicated to me that with respect to the very strong criticism brought forward by the president he had had a report, and he added:

-I can state unequivocally that either the president was not directing her remarks at the government or else she was unequivocally wrong.

There followed a day or two of fairly intensive debate with the Prime Minister about the validity of the remarks and the accuracy of the remarks. For the record 1 want to quote extensively from the remarks of the president because I think

Adjournment Debate

it is important that all hon. members realize how strong the criticism was of an advisory body appointed by this government. Mrs. Rousseau began her remarks with this paragraph:

After considerable study, consultation and discussion, I have come to a tragic conclusion: not only are Canadian women excluded from the employment strategy proposed by the Canadian government, but they are subtly evicted from the labour force. This conclusion is all the more bitter in that it questions women's right to work. After ten years of in depth studies, conclusive research and multiple recommendations, such are the facts.

At page 3 of her text she went on to say:

But when we dissect official statements made in time of economic ill-health, we are appalled to see that women are consistently held responsible for the high rate of unemployment, though they fall victims to it more than other groups. Consequently, they are used as scapegoats and as a screen for a chronic inability to redress the economy.

She then raised two questions not yet answered by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), as follows:

Before it was decided to exclude women from the employment strategy, why is it that the CACSW's advice was not asked? Is an advisory council a political ornament? Are there any women on the regional working groups advising Canada Employment and Immigration Commission's sector task forces?

On the next page she asked:

Why are they always ignored in policy planning?

She was referring here to the role of women. In the latter part of her remarks she said:

If government does not know its own objectives, or does not make then known, we know what our objectives are: women's right to training, to work and to employment mobility on an equal footing with men.

Then there is this further question:

Is our role as Advisory Council on the Status of Women recognized, or will the government take our advice only when faced with emergency situations?

I want to remind all hon. members that the criticism that was posed by the president of the Advisory Council did not come lightly. It follows numerous official comments and statements made in recent years. I just want to list three or four that I have before me this evening. Hon. members will recall that on April 10, 1978, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) in his budget statement said:

An important reason for the growth of our labour force has been the growing number of Canadian women who are working. Since 1970, the number of adult women in the labour force has increased from 1.9 million to 2.7 million, a rise of more than 40 per cent.

Then on September 8, 1978, detailing the announcements by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), the so called Chretien-Andras statement of that date said:

The strong gains in employment have been matched by continued rapid increases in the labour force as a result of the continued increase in the proportion of women and young people seeking work. Thus the unemployment rate averaged 8.5 per cent over the first half of the year, although it dropped to 8.4 per cent in July.

Then the Prime Minister's comments this year, first on the program "Question Period" televised by CTV on September 8, 1978, in which he said:

There was about 36 per cent of the women working three years ago and now there is 42 per cent of them. But this phenomenon will stabilize at one time. ..

The same thing with the youth problem . . . You know, we're creating and I think we're quite successful in creating jobs but I have to admit that we cannot create them as fast as the people come into the labour force.

Finally at the end of the year on September 28, 1978, in a conversation with Bruce Phillips broadcast by CTV, the Prime Minister said:

-the labour force is increasing because of immigration, immigration to Canada, because of what is called participation rate which really means that the percentage of young people and women who want to work now is immensely higher than it was ten or 15 or 20 years ago.

People want to enter the labour force, and they see that that is their answer, O.K., you will have eight per cent unemployed.

Then the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) on January 29, 1979, in speaking to an international symposium on female offenders, said:

In addition, increased opportunities for women in the labour force brought increased opportunities to engage in a wider range of criminal pursuits.

If there was any doubt about the feeling of either the advisory council or its six parallel bodies, that should have been put to rest on January 29 when a letter was sent to the Minister of Employment and Immigration on behalf of the six provincial bodies and the federal body which says:

Dear Mr. Cullen:

At a special meeting of the leaders of the Advisory Councils on the Status of Women of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan held in Toronto, January 26, 1979, there was unanimous endorsation of Yvette Rousseau's position that "not only are Canadian women excluded from the employment strategies proposed by the federal government, but they are subtly evicted from the labour force."

That, along with the extensive letter which indicated in detailed terms the anxieties and questions which these advisory bodies had, should let the government know in no uncertain terms the atmosphere which they have created with their subtle and sometimes not so subtle attack on the right of women to a place in the labour force.

To put the other side of the case, a recent report from the C.D. Howe Research Institute, as quoted by Don McGillivray in a recent article, suggested this:

What will it mean for the Canadian economy if women keep joining the paid work force at the rapid rate of the past couple of years?

The pessimistic answer is that it will mean more unemployment. The optimistic answer is that it will mean more economic growth.

What we need from this government is a more positive response to the right of each and every woman to her desire to a full share and an equal opportunity in the market place.

Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken and the chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Status of Women share positive and real concern about the place of women in the labour force. But perhaps what they have both done is to misunderstand some government statements. What has been said by ministers, as the hon. member has quoted, is that the participation of women in the labour force has increased very dramatically. This is a fact. It is not a matter of blame, it is a fact. It is a fact which I welcome. I certainly agree with him and with the very positive approach by the C. D. Howe people that

February 13, 1979

enhanced participation also enhances opportunities for the country. But, in the short term, the very rapid increase in the labour force, which includes young people and women, presents us with the need to create a lot more jobs very quickly.

In the last year something like 340,000 additional jobs were created in Canada, yet we still find ourselves with more unemployment than we want. This is a statement of numbers. It is by no means intended to suggest that either women or young people do not have a right to jobs or that we must not enhance our efforts to create them.

On April 18 last 1 placed some figures on the record, also in response to a question by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). They were with regard to the steps being taken in the public service. Tonight I would like to mention some of the steps being taken in the Department of Employment and Immigration at the present time.

The CEIC is working in the area of affirmative action geared toward employers, unions, and women returning to the labour force as well as national women's organizations. Women are being encouraged by departmental officers to look toward training in non-traditional jobs. The over-all strategy and action plans of CEIC reflect an attitude toward encouraging employers to change attitudes that could be disadvantageous in the hiring and promoting of women and to train and accept them in non-traditional areas.

I know that the chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Status of Women whom the hon. member for Egmont quoted is perfectly sincere and indeed to be commended for her fear that women in this time of economic straits may lose what they have gained in the labour force. This is certainly not the policy of the Government of Canada. On the contrary. Far from being excluded from the employment strategy, at the present time there are particular efforts being made in the employment strategy to encourage the participation of women and to continue further this very welcome trend that has developed in recent years.

One might also mention that in 1976 the changes in measuring the labour force survey for the first time began to reflect accurately the participation of women in the labour force. This is an important measurement.

Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I quoted from the Cape Breton Post of Tuesday, November 28, 1978, in which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) was quoted as saying that a decision would be made before the end of 1978 on whether Sydney Steel would get funds for modernization needed to carry out a ten-year sales contract with the Tree Island Steel Company Limited of Richmond, British Columbia.

Adjournment Debate

In answering me today, the minister gave an explanation of some of the reasons for the delay in making the decision, but in effect said, if I understood his French, that he would be taking a proposition before the cabinet in a short time. In my supplementary I tried to impress, through the minister, on the cabinet who will be receiving what is in reality the effects of combined negotiations between DREE officials in Moncton and Halifax, and Sysco management people from Sydney, which have been going on quite intensively for some time, the urgency of a favourable decision for Sysco.

I also want to make it abundantly clear that if the cabinet does not decide to go along with the modernization plan for Sysco, then there is only, in my opinion, one or two alternatives. Eight years ago there may have been three or four, but now it is a question either of modernization, of reducing Sysco to the production of rails only, or close it down. The reduction of the plant to a rail mill operation only would mean that steel blooms would have to be imported from somewhere else and turned into the rail products. This would mean that about 400 employees would remain, out of a present work force of some 3,056.

As well, it is completely unrealistic to depend on spot markets for blooms in order to keep a rail mill going. We must also remember that when Sysco is operating at near its capacity of some one million tons, some 500,000 to 600,000 tons of Cape Breton coal will be used in the plant.

The steel workers and their families in the industrial area have suffered through many crises during the years which culminated in the announcement on October 13, 1967, by the private owners of the plant that it would be closing down. That day is etched in the memories and emotions of all Cape Bretoners and, indeed, of most Nova Scotians, and has always been referred to as "Black Friday".

The provincial government of the day took over the plant. As I have said on many occasions, I think the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which was set up in 1967, should have taken over the steel plant as well as the coal industry. But the federal government failed to do so and therefore it has, in my opinion, a special moral obligation to make sure that the finances for modernization are available and that any needed advisory help is provided to the management team which will have to direct the modernization operations as they evolve.

I do not want to go into the history of the last 12 years of the Sydney Steel plant, or to be vitriolic about some of the decisions which were made. Some of us who were close to Canadian and world steel trends felt that the decision to postpone the installation of modern steel making facilities, such as oxygen furnaces, and experimenting with what is called the submerged injection process, was the most backward and the most harmful of all the decisions which were made during that period. There was, as well, in the early period of the take-over, what the auditor general of Nova Scotia referred to as the declaration of "illusory profits" by the management of Sysco. The psychological effect on the

February 13, 1979

Adjournment Debate

employees of this latter action was extremely bad; they felt that profits had risen to some $29 million in about a year and a half. I mentioned that these profits were illusory, but their declaration was a prime reason for an unnecessary and uncalled-for strike which occurred in 1972 and lasted some seven weeks.

Given the changing international steel outlook, emphasis was then placed on building a new steel plant on the Greenfield site at Gabarus, Cape Breton Island, sponsored by an international consortium of international steel producers. Time and radically changing circumstances on the international steel scene have shown that the dream of Mr. Ralph Hindson, managing director of the now defunct Cansteel Corporation, the provincial agency responsible for setting up the new plant, was passe.

Attention then returned once again to the modernization of Sysco. In the days when the plant was viable it sold its bread and butter product, namely, steel rails, in large tonnages. The private owners had for a number of years a sort of captive market for its semi-finished steel products in the finishing mills they owned in the province of Quebec. Gradually these mills in Quebec were sold by the private owners to a Quebec provincially-owned company called Sidbec. Eventually, with a growth of basic steel production by Sidbec, these markets were largely lost to Sysco.

What the management of Sysco is trying to do through its ten-year contract is to supply up to 2.4 million tons of billets to Tree Island Steel Company of Richmond, B.C. This contract would be worth about $300 million. Through this and other contracts it could lay a long-term basis for something equivalent to the captive markets for the products of Sysco. This requires basic modernization of the plant at a cost of approximately $150 million, and the restructuring of the debt load caused by the losses incurred during the bad years of 1970.

I am happy to say that the minister in charge of DREE, who told me today that in a very short while he intends to bring a proposition with regard to this matter before the cabinet, seems to be playing a helpful role in the co-operative federalism which alone can save this country. A favourable decision by the cabinet on this issue could lift the morale of both workers and management and encourage them to pursue the goal of an efficient steel plant on the east coast, giving permanent employment to thousands of workers. This, along with the commitments already made to our increasingly vital coal industry and to our reviving fishing industry, is a realistic basis for a new hope for a complete turn around and some meaningful diversification of the Cape Breton economy within the next decade.

Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reply to the hon. member regarding the Sydney Steel Corporation. I should like to elaborate on the statement made by the minister this afternoon. In the summer of 1978 the government of Nova Scotia made a comprehensive and costly proposal to the federal government for the rehabilitation of the Sydney Steel Corporation.

This proposal was resubmitted to the federal government by the government of Nova Scotia under the Hon. John Buchanan and was discussed between the premier and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) on November 28, 1978. At that time the premier and the minister agreed that December 31, 1978, was not a critical decision date for confirmation of a ten-year billet contract between the Sydney Steel Corporation of Nova Scotia and the Tree Island Steel Company of British Columbia. Furthermore, the proposal made to the federal government envisaged a capital rehabilitation program considerably beyond that necessary to meet the requirements of the Tree Island Steel Company.

A working group consisting of officials of DREE and of the Sydney Steel Corporation has been reviewing all aspects of the Nova Scotia proposal, including production capability, markets and profitability. Results of marketing studies, carried out under the current $20 million subsidiary agreement in support of Sysco, have contributed to this evaluation. A number of production alternatives are being costed so as to determine the most viable production options for the Sydney Steel Corporation, given world market conditions for the products that Sysco can produce. At the same time, refinements to the Nova Scotia proposal have been made up to and including January of 1979, and these refinements are also being evaluated.

Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the hon. member, however, that even though the Tisco billet contract may turn out to be attractive, from the point of view of Sysco, this contract in itself would not ensure future viability or profitability for the Sydney Steel Corporation. It will be necessary for Sysco to produce other products for sale in Canada and abroad, on as viable a basis as possible.

I am well aware of the importance to Cape Breton of the Sydney Steel Corporation operation, and I am hopeful that the minister will be in a position in the very near future to propose a federal position to the province of Nova Scotia.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.33 p.m.

Wednesday, February 14, 1979