Mr. Pepin:

Mr. Chairman, if there was such a decision, the $50 million would be in the present estimates because these are the estimates of the previous administration. So there must be something wrong with the information which my hon. friend is being given.

Miss Campbell:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to turn to the supplementary estimate under Energy, Mines and Resources, in particular to the contribution to the Tidal Power Corporation for a demonstration project for a low-head hydroelectric

May 15, 1980

installation of $12.5 million. It is my understanding that the Annapolis tidal project has been discussed for several years, and I am glad to see today that we are in the process of ratifying, in the supplementary estimates before the House, part of the federal contribution to this project. The grant and contribution come under the item for energy research and technology development, and we are being asked to pass $12.5 million of a total grant of up to $25 million to the Tidal Power Corporation for a demonstration project for a low-head hydroelectric installation.

This power project at the Annapolis causeway is a hydro demonstration program initiated jointly by the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia. The Straflo turbine is a new design of a hydraulic turbine which has been awaiting since 1978 the opportunity for large scale demonstration. This hydraulic turbine has a potential for reducing considerably the capital cost of low and medium-head hydro plants in Canada, as well as improving the economics of tidal generation. At least it should provide some learning lessons on tidal power.

The federal government and the province of Nova Scotia reached an agreement to instal a demonstration project at an estimated cost of $46 million at the Annapolis causeway. Energy benefits to Nova Scotia are estimated at $17.5 million, and a federal grant of up to $25 million is being offered.

The design concept of this unit has been developed by Escher-Syss in Switzerland, and so far it has not been demonstrated at a physical scale that would prove its suitability for the larger generating unit sizes which would be employed in major tidal development or in major river installations. The primary object of the demonstration is thus to obtain its validation of the design in larger sizes and to create the degree of confidence that would allow committing major projects of this design of unit.

The advantage of this design is expected to be substantial savings in the capital cost of civil engineering work required to install the unit in hydroelectric plants, in comparison with the more conventional turbine designs that are now available.

Nova Scotia is to be commended for providing the site for this demonstration and undertaking to make a capital contribution commensurate with the energy benefits that are expected, mainly through the displacement of oil fuel that would be used in the oil production of an equivalent amount of electricity. It should be noted that Nova Scotia takes a financial risk in putting up this capital and being responsible for the cost-management of the project in the unlikely event that the demonstration is unsuccessful.

I notice, Mr. Chairman, that this project is justified on a national basis, but I wonder whether or not the project is dependent. I have been told that this project will replace

85,000 barrels of oil a year out of today's Nova Scotia use of five million barrels of oil a year. I wonder if this benefit of displacement of oil use is dependent on whether the total project is a success. In other words, there may be other aspects of the project that might not be a success due to not being able to use that turbine, but I am wondering if the project will be a

Supply

success for Nova Scotia on the basis of benefits returned for the displacement of oil.

The other aspect of this funding by the federal government was that it would be given on the basis of an initial environmental assessment. Before the federal government would go along with this investment by the province and the federal government in the Tidal Power Corporation, the federal government approved the Martec assessment of environmental and other related issues involved in this project. My concern is that they gave formal approval, and since this project is in my riding, I can say that they gave the formal approval subject to four conditions which I would like to bring to the minister's attention. I should like to hear his comments on whether or not these conditions are being met by the Tidal Power Corporation. As I said, the formal approval of the project was given subject to these four conditions.

The first one was assurances that the Tidal Power Corporation will incorporate reasonable measures to limit the loss of presently productive agricultural land, including losses due to potential increased bank erosion. It is my understanding that in the month of April a survey was done on water levels.

My second question to the minister tonight is on whether we have the results of this water level survey. My understanding is that, due to the spring thaw conditions, perhaps we did not have the level of water necessary to give a full evaluation of the amount of water which would be in the basin necessary for the turbines to be fully operational. I wonder what is tied into this commitment given to the federal government from the Tidal Power Corporation, because the federal government is committing itself tonight to this money under an agreement which was signed in January during the election.

The second condition for giving formal approval to the funding of this project was to undertake, in concert with local and provincial authorities, to plan construction to minimize the strain on the local socioeconomic infrastructure. Again I should like to know whether or not the Tidal Power Corporation is following through on this.

The third matter was to extend a planning role to the existing local farmers' committee to work with the corporation in the planning and running of the early water level tests.

This week I spoke with one farmer who went to a lot of trouble to tile his land. During the month of April his tiles were approximately one foot under water. I am wondering if anyone went to the farmer's land during April while the testing was going on. I would like to know if the Tidal Power Corporation is following through on liaising with the farmers. I think there are about 250 marsh owners in that area.

The last request was to ensure that all reasonable steps were taken with respect to the fish ways. If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans were here, I am sure he would realize that when one puts a tide gate or blocks any entry way, one must provide a passage way for the fish to go through. According to the concerns of the Department of Fisheries, too many fish may be caught in the turbine. The fishway should be attractive enough

May 15, 1980

Supply

and large enough to bring the fish up that way. I wonder what the force of the water will be and how the fish will manage to get up there. However, these are some of the things for which I thought formal approval was given, pending these four conditions.

I want to save a bit of time in order to get answers to my questions. I really have only two questions, on whether or not the conditions are being adhered to by the Tidal Power Corporation, and what they have done. Also I should like to know whether or not the benefit in oil displacement for electrical energy by this hydro power plant is there, regardless of whether the project is a success in terms of the use of low head turbine.

I suppose another question one would ask is whether we know of any provision for flooding, the process the flooding might take, and its effect. 1 think this would come under the first condition as to the water levels.

Before asking the minister to comment, one other matter which came to my attention today was a press release or a telex in which the premier of Nova Scotia seems to be using extremely strong terms concerning the decision of the federal government not to extend the western natural gas pipeline into the maritimes. Being a member of the government side, I should like to indicate that I have not heard this decision. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on the decision that the Government of Canada does not plan to extend the pipeline to the maritimes, as was indicated by Premier Buchanan in his telegram. If that is the case, then perhaps Premier Buchanan is right. But there are a couple of other items in his telex to which I would like to refer.

He implied that the Canadian Transport Commission is refusing EPA. My understanding of the application before CTC is that EPA has appealed and that a decision on the appeal has not come forth. It is somewhat unfair to allow the people of Nova Scotia to think the federal government is oppressive when the procedures have not yet been followed. The premier ended up by saying that he will be in Ottawa next week and that he will be trying to convince the federal cabinet to overturn the decision of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the recommendation of the National Energy Board. If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources needs any convincing, I am sure we can do it ourselves. I am sure we do not have to do it ourselves because, after all, we are as concerned as the rest of Canada as to how the energy policy will fit in across Canada.

Mr. Rae:

You do not need any of the other parties at all.

Miss Campbell:

Perhaps I have taken it out of context, but I think it should be read into the record. I cannot quite imagine if this is Halifax CP Press or CP Telex, but it begins by indicating that "Premier John Buchanan said Thursday"-if the term "said" is used, it has to be CP Press, or it could be CP Air. It reads as follows:

Premier John Buchanan said Thursday the federal government's decision not to extend the western natural gas pipeline into the maritimes will greatly sour relations with Ottawa.

"Nova Scotians are a rather quiet people"-

I agree; we are nice.

It continues:

-"and we like to negotiate ... in a friendly fashion", Buchanan said of the announcement by federal energy minister Marc Lalonde. "But I'll tell you there comes a point when we are ready to dig in our heels and fight. If the federal government of this country will not recognize the unique problems we have here in Atlantic Canada"-

I am pleased he sent this telex right now because we are about to approve a grant of up to $25 million for a project in Nova Scotia; $12.5 million will automatically go toward this tidal power project.

It continues:

-"the unique problems we have here in Atlantic Canada, then quite frankly and honestly I think we're coming to that point right now." He said relations have already been strained because of the continuing confrontation over control of offshore resources. He also criticized the recent decision by the Canadian Transport Commission to give Halifax landing rights to CP Air, although the Nova Scotia government publicly opted for a competing bid from Eastern Provincial Airways.

Certainly everyone in this House would like to support Eastern Provincial Airways; it is an Atlantic company. But there is an appeal procedure, and we will have to wait and see.

It continues:

Buchanan said he will be in Ottawa next week and hopes to convince the federal cabinet to overturn Lalonde's announcement, made on the recommendation of the National Energy Board.

I would like to hear the minister's comments on this matter, but in particular I should like to hear what he has to say on the Tidal Power Corporation which we are funding to the tune of $25 million, as well as the conditions given on formal approval of that agreement.

Really I am concerned about three matters. First, is the oil displacement by this project conditional upon whether or not the total project is a success in terms of a national interest? Second, have the conditions been agreed to by the Tidal Power Corporation in Nova Scotia? Third, will the minister indicate whether or not he has abandoned the idea of a pipeline going east from Quebec?

Mr. Lalonde:

Mr. Chairman, first I should like to congratulate the hon. member for her knowledge of the situation concerning the tidal power project in her own area. As a matter of fact I must say that she appears to know a lot more than I do about this project, and I congratulate her for it.

I should like to make a comment on this general question. It has to do with the fact that this particular project concerning Annapolis tidal power was signed by the previous government during the election, on January 29, 1980. Indeed that agreement provided for the experiment which the hon. member mentioned. It implies a contribution of $25 million from the federal government toward a total cost of $46 million for this particular project. The plan is to have $25 million paid to Nova Scotia by the federal government in two annual pay-

May 15, 1980

ments of equal amounts, hence the reference in these particular estimates to $12.5 million. This is indeed a significant contribution to the project which is taking place in Nova Scotia. As the hon. member will have noticed, it is well above 50 per cent. This government intends to proceed-provided the House endorses this amount-with contributing to the realization of that particular project.

The hon. member asked a question about oil displacement. Obviously, the oil displacement possibility to which the hon. member referred will take place only if the project is a success. If the project were not a success, we would be back at the drawing board, 1 suspect, and the Tidal Power Corporation of Nova Scotia would be required to develop alternative techniques to use the particular development that will have taken place in the Annapolis Valley. The project is under the direction and control of the Tidal Power Corporation in Nova Scotia.

I am advised that this corporation is a provincial corporation and does not have federal government representatives on the board. The hon. member will understand therefore, that, although I would like to be as well-informed as she is about the details of this particular project, it is essentially a matter which is under the direction of the provincial government of Nova Scotia. I am advised, though, that there is a general agreement providing for federal funding and that federal officials are consulted occasionally about the evolution of this particular project.

As to the specific conditions to which the hon. member referred, I must confess that I am not aware of the details. 1 will inquire, particularly from the government of Nova Scotia or Tidal Power Corporation, as to exactly what they have done with regard to those conditions and as to what point they are at with regard to this matter. I will be very happy to provide the hon. member with any information I can obtain from the authorities in Nova Scotia. I can tell the hon. member that an environmental advisory board and technical committees will be established to interface with the corporation to ensure that a number of studies dealing with the environment are carried out with the best possible advice.

I am also advised that the particular corporation has committed itself to keep the local public informed and to seeking their views as planning progresses on this project. 1 am sure that the hon. member will not hesitate to bring this matter to my attention if, for any reason, she were not getting satisfactory information either from myself or from the provincial authority or Tidal Power Corporation.

As to the hon. member's last point concerning the gas pipeline project to eastern Canada, as she may know, and as hon. members no doubt know, by law, reports from the National Energy Board can be either accepted or rejected by cabinet, but they cannot be modified as such. We have received a report from the National Energy Board which has recommended that the natural gas system be immediately extended beyond Montreal to Quebec City. However, with

Supply

regard to the other part of the project, which was an extension to the maritime provinces, the National Energy Board has raised two concerns or objections which they felt should be resolved before considering and approving the extension of the pipeline to the maritime provinces.

The first point involves environmental studies which, in the opinion of the board, have not been fully carried out by the Quebec and Maritime Corporation. It is the view of the National Energy Board that they should obtain better environmental assessments before giving consideration to the Q and M project. They have indicated that, in their opinion, the Q and M Corporation had not carried out sufficient environmental studies. Indeed, we hope that Q and M will proceed as quickly as possible to developing the necessary work in order to ensure that any extension of the pipeline meets our environmental standards.

The second point raised by the National Energy Board was to the effect that the application put forward by the Quebec and Maritime Corporation did not adequately consider potential offshore development. They also stated that there should be an extended pause in order to obtain further information about offshore potential, particularly with regard to Sable Island, and at that point it would be more appropriate to consider the application of Q and M. Then everybody would be in a better position on what would be more advisable, whether the gas pipeline should be built from Quebec City to Halifax with immediate reversible capacity, or whether in the end gas would be flowing, not from west to east but, instead, the happy development of natural gas flowing from east to west.

These are the reasons which are given by the National Energy Board in their report to the government. The government has considered that report and has accepted it. As I indicated, as a government we had the option of either rejecting the report or accepting it. We have accepted it, and this means that at least part of the pipeline, that part from Montreal to Quebec City, can be undertaken without further delay. We still consider the maritime extension of the pipeline a matter of high priority.

We indicated in the Speech from the Throne that the government favours the earliest possible construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritime provinces. We indicated that we were awaiting the report of the National Energy Board on this project. Naturally, I would have been happy if the recommendation had been to proceed immediately with the extension to the maritime provinces.

I raised this issue with the premier of Nova Scotia last week and with the officials and ministers of New Brunswick. I must report that the New Brunswick government has indicated before the energy board, and reiterated last week, the concern that things are proceeding too fast and that there is no time to examine all the alternatives available to the pipeline itself. The government of New Brunswick wanted to be sure that any pipeline that was built would indeed bring to the consumers of the maritime provinces an alternative to oil, that that alternative would be the most efficient and that they would not pay

May 15, 1980

Supply

more for what they would get in the end than what they would pay for another alternative.

I also raised the possibility of a report along those lines with the Premier of Nova Scotia last week. Efe did not indicate at that time the feelings which he seems to have indicated in the CP story. I will certainly be happy to meet with him if he comes to Ottawa next week. I want to tell him he should realize, however, that such a project does not affect only Nova Scotia, that there are two other maritime provinces involved.

There have been some views expressed by the government of New Brunswick. I have noticed, even in Nova Scotia, that there are people who are concerned that the development which takes place be good for the consumers and workers of that province, and not just a project imposed upon the maritime provinces. I noticed, for instance, that the steel workers in Cape Breton, showed their support today for the position of the federal government by saying in effect that the Nova Scotia government should bear in mind the interests of the workers, the advisability of further coal development, and a careful examination of all the alternatives. They also said that careful attention should be given to the possibility of a substantial gas find off Sable Island.

As I said, this government still believes that the construction of the pipeline to the maritimes is a project that should receive priority consideration. I hope that the Q and M Corporation is going to proceed with the work that is required from it in the environmental field and that we will also be able to have further information as soon as possible concerning the possible discoveries of natural gas off Sable Island. It is our intention to try to develop ways and means to speed up explorations in this area and to try to get the relative information at the earliest possible moment, after which I hope we will get a positive report from the National Energy Board.

I hope these few comments will answer the points raised by the hon. member. I shall not comment further on the more histrionic part of the statement by the premier of her province at this time.

Mr. Skelly:

Mr. Chairman, my comments tonight are again directed to the Minister of Transport. I have to say that I enjoyed some of the very humorous remarks this evening and the sort of soft shoe approach. I admit that I got lost in the fog along with the Canadian merchant fleet.

I should like to return to the topic of search and rescue on the west coast and the department's role in that particular endeavour.

Two rowboats!

Mr. Skelly:

Before doing that I should like to go back to an incident that occurred off the east coast of Newfoundland where 13 Dutch seamen drowned from the Dutch ship, The Gabriella. I would remind the minister that as the result of the tragic death of those 13 people, his government built a search and rescue base and equipped it with three helicopters. They

also took some action to rationalize search and rescue in Canada. There were attempts to co-ordinate the S and R committee and things along that line.

I should like to refer to another incident which took place on the west coast of Canada in British Columbia and compare it with the incident in Newfoundland. In the two weeks over the Christmas period in 1979, just a few months ago, 42 people died as a result of the sinking of a Panamanian freighter, a fishing vessel, and a few other incidents.

One of the things that came out of this, which matches the event in Newfoundland, was the complete failure of government capability to provide a rescue platform into the area. Again, figures become a problem but, as I recall, the distress call came in about 9 in the morning. They managed to get one of the helicopters of the Department of Transport to the site at 1.15. The problem was that, after four hours in the water, any who survived the sinking were dead from exposure. The sinking of the vessel, the Lee Wan Zing, was a tragic event. From anything that people in British Columbia can determine, the department has done absolutely nothing about this; it has sat on the case for four months. I believe the Department of National Defence has taken what appears to be some concrete action by cutting back the search and rescue helicopter upgrading program. The minister had the courage the other day to say it was adequate and even improving!

I should like to ask the minister one very simple question. As Minister of Transport can he assure the House that the government has done nothing, or the fact that the government has done nothing about those 42 deaths has nothing to do with the fact that those people were Taiwanese seamen and Canadian Indians? Can the minister give the House the assurance that the government has done nothing and it is related to that fact?

Mr. Pepin:

Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend seems to be in a pugnacious mood-"said nothing," "done nothing," and what not. I just want to repeat what I heard this morning, that the search and rescue facility is a major preoccupation of the Department of Transport and it is still a major one for the Department of National Defence. As my hon. friend knows, the first responsibility is theirs. We support that effort to the best of our capabilities.

I do not think he should emphasize so strongly that nothing is being done. As a matter of fact, in the present estimates nine vessels are being added to the search and rescue support facilities, one of them in Campbell River, B.C., a crash boat in the west Strait of Georgia, B.C., and one of them at Prince Rupert, so the effort is expanding. In a nutshell, we do the best we can with what we have, and what we have is improving. Canada is tremendously-

There is money for fighter planes.

Mr. Pepin:

If ever they need to use those planes, the very people who say we do not need them now would be hiding somewhere. The situation is improving and the estimates tonight demonstrate that. We are trying to improve our rela-

May 15, 1980

tionship with DND so as to make our efforts as well coordinated as possible and similarly with the United States, a country with which co-operation is apparently of the first magnitude. Again, with the geography we have and with the extent of our coasts as well as four inland waters, there are limitations to the quality of the job that can be done.

I am sure my hon. friend will realize that to do a perfect job for that distance would cost billions.

$10 million.

Mr. Pepin:

What?

Mr. Skelly:

If I might elaborate, Mr. Chairman, this demonstrates the dilemma. The Minister of Transport really does not grasp the basic concept. His former colleague from Skeena had been beating away at the government for five years trying to tell them the service is totally inadequate. The minister referred to the 21 metre vessel program, but that is to meet an entirely different need. Its only capability is an inshore capability; it cannot be taken out in Dixon Entrance or Queen Charlotte Sound in extremely rough water. Also, it cannot be delivered there. A person will die in that water within 35 minutes.

There is a program that could be developed, however. There are 14 helicopters on the west coast of Canada but they are used in an erratic fashion. If they were to be moved to the Canadian forces station at Holbrook or Masset-the capability of the Sikorsky which is a perfect marine helicopter for distribution along the coast-that equipment could be moved anywhere on the coast in 35 minutes. The service could cover from Sitka, Alaska, to Port Angeles in 35 minutes.

I have had a chance to discuss this with Boeing, who handle the CHI 13, and with the Sikorsky people. Rough and dirty figures, estimated on the high side, are that the relocation of that equipment would cost less than $10 million. That is the high side, rough and dirty figure. If the minister does not believe my figures he can check with the companies.

The 21 metre vessel will not be adequate in a situation such as the one with the Lee Wan Zing. If that is not enough to impress the government and the department that vital changes have to be made now, I would remind them that Iona Campag-nolo has said, as many others have, that there is a real problem. The government has missed the point completely. At any rate, I suspect it will take the sinking of the Queen of Prince Rupert or something of that nature to really drive the point home.

The B.C. transportation agreement is another very serious concern for the people of British Columbia. There are many Indian communities along the coast and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will appreciate some of the dilemmas they face. A former minister of transport, Otto Lang, made an agreement with the government of B.C. as a result of which the service of Northland Navigation, which served the entire coast, was scrapped. In return, Mr. Lang approached the premier of British Columbia and gave him $8 million as a subsidy for transportation. They placed a clause in

Supply

that agreement which says that the province of British Columbia agrees that in accepting the federal government subsidy as provided herein for ferry and coastal freight and passenger service in B.C. coastal waters, it will assure reasonable and adequate service and appropriate supervision thereof.

The Queen of Prince Rupert, the only vessel travelling up and down that coast, was stopped from serving the coast of B.C. on April 6. It is expected that the ferry service might return on June 1, but it will be a different vessel, the Queen of the North, but there is absolutely no guarantee about that.

Indian communities up and down that coast, as well as other communities, have all been cut off from services. The only way out is by air and the cost is roughly $180 return per person. The freight rates that are coming in are enormous. The government of British Columbia certainly has not lived up to the intent of that particular clause.

I would propose that the minister compare both coasts of Canada, and ignore for the moment the constitutional requirements by looking at how the federal government fulfils its transportation responsibility through a subsidy program. On the east coast of Canada a rough figure on a per capita basis is $44 while in B.C. the per capita figure is $4. Considering some of the very disruptive moves made by the minister's predecessor that have totally disrupted the service on the coast of B.C., and an example is Northland Navigation. Another area of that department that built a $1 million wharf at Bella Coola to service vessels suddenly cut the line of service off to it. The Minister of Indian Affairs, who has been pouring millions of dollars into economic development in Indian communities to solve things like massive unemployment because of the loose and ragged nature of the agreement with the government of B.C., in a sort of abrogation of reponsibility has suddenly said that that is it for nine weeks, in the middle of the fishing and tourist season.

The government of B.C. decided to close down the community of Ocean Falls, which is right smack in the middle, and it depends absolutely on that ferry service. The town was closed down. Roughly 400 people to this point in time have been laid off, and there is no ferry to haul their goods in or out. They cannot fly their goods in or out; they must be barged in at a tremendously expensive rate.

I would urge the minister to end the subsidy to B.C. In fact, stop it right now because the government of B.C. has failed to live up to that agreement. It is a strange thing for a person from British Columbia to say, but I would urge the minister to go to British Columbia, open the negotiations with that province and come to a conditional agreement that provides specifically what services will be provided to what communities and on what basis. Then, for your part, offer a fair subsidy, a subsidy which is somewhere nearly comparable to what is offered on the east coast of Canada. I would like to hear your reaction to that approach.

May 15, 1980

Supply

Mr. Pepin:

Mr. Chairman, I will be fairly brief because I do not want to take the time of others.

On the first point of rescue operations, I listened carefully to what was said by my hon. friend. This will probably be looked at and analysed, and questions will be asked on the subject. Thank you very much for that particular contribution.

On the subject of ferries, my friend makes too easy a comparison between the west and the east coasts of Canada. On the west coast these are intra-provincial operations. Consequently, there was good justification for the Canadian government to make the agreement it made with B.C. so that it would exercise the normal provincial jurisdiction in these matters.

I do not think it could be constitutionally valid for the federal government, once these agreements have been made, to spend the time supervising and looking over the shoulder of provincial authorities to see if they live up to the standards of the central government. If there is some chastisement to be done, it will be done by the people of the province in one way or the other, presumably at election time. I just want to emphasize the danger of making too easy a comparison between the west coast and the east coast because these ferries on the east coast cross over provincial boundaries.

Mr. Skelly:

Mr. Chairman, the point escapes me. We were dealing with a situation where the federal government was involved before. It did recognize the responsibility and now it does not. I am sure a conditional agreement would be the thing. Even the minister's predecessor in the other government said that the criticism had grown to such a level that he was seriously considering some kind of action to get conditional arrangements.

I would like to move to one other area respecting the coast of British Columbia that affects the entire coast, and it shows the philosophy of the government toward transportation. There are two small islands halfway up the coast of British Columbia, about 200 miles from each end. One is Campbell Island and the other is Denny Island. On the Campbell Island live 1,200 Indian people in an Indian community. On Denny Island, a short distance away, live 50 people.

Some years ago the Department of Transport did a study having to do with an airport on the central coast. The reasoning was that there is no facility from which a search and rescue base can operate. I think we lost 100 aircraft last year and a number of fishing boats suffered loss of life. However, if helicopters work that area, they must work out of Port Hardy, which is over 100 miles away, or alternatively, from a place called Sandspit which is a tremendous distance away and so is not effective. That area is also a major flyway, not only for geese but also for aircraft going back and forth from Alaska to the southern states. There is also a tremendous amount of Canadian aircraft using the air space but there is nowhere for these aircraft to land. As a matter of fact, a plane flying from Alaska was caught short of fuel in the middle of a storm and heavy headwinds and the pilot had to land in a school yard on

Campbell Island. That is a very dangerous situation. There is nothing from Sandspit to Port Hardy.

The area has international flavour and it has search and rescue flavour. But the crazy situation is that this government has been saying that it is not its responsibility, that it is the responsibility of the government of British Columbia. On the other hand, B.C. said it is not its responsibility and will not become involved, saying it is federal responsibility. What has happened is that 1,250 people on two separate islands have started to build two airports. The Indian community is working on an airport and the other community is doing the same thing. In my opinion this is sheer stupidity. This is because the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have pumped millions of dollars into the Indian community to develop economic projects there and to provide employment. The community on Campbell Island has a hospital and the RCMP. It strikes me that that would be the logical community to develop. But two airports will probably be built and waste precious, valuable resources because both governments just keep passing the buck back and forth.

I know that the federal government and the minister are very concerned about the spending of funds to provide decent services for people. However, if the federal government was to build an airport there, it would be a tremendous cost reduction for the people of B.C. and a tremendous boost to safety, as well as giving immeasurable help to the Indian community.

I would urge the minister to look at the study, to examine it once again and then negotiate a settlement so those communities can co-operate and build a second airport. I would urge the minister to support the project on Campbell Island because of population facilities and the basic need. I ask the minister to please break this impasse.

Mr. Pepin:

Mr. Chairman, I do not have anything particular to contribute. This airport is looked upon as provincial responsibility and treated as such. Again, my hon. friend is suggesting for the second time that we should take over provincial responsibility, at least this is the way I read him. There are so many things to be done in B.C. and elsewhere that are clearly federal responsibility and we are satisfied with that. However, I am very grateful for the advice given by my hon. friend, particularly with respect to the previous subject.

Mr. Bachand:

Mr. Chairman, my questions are for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. My three questions relate to the contract for the purchase of the F-18 aircraft. Here is my first question: Can the minister say whether there have been new developments since the F-18 was chosen or can he give details about the sites chosen for the establishment of two important projects, that is a General Electric plant for the manufacturing of blades and vanes that had been promised to the eastern townships, and a digital control machining centre that had been promised to Quebec?

May 15, 1980

My second question is: Is the minister still convinced the estimate of $1.5 billion of economic benefits for Quebec is realistic?

Mr. Chairman, my third question is this: Is it true that during the negotiations the PQ government minister, Mr. Duhaime not to name him, was given an opportunity to come and see the F-16 and F-18 file, and that he did not avail himself of that opportunity?

Mr. Gray:

Mr. Chairman, it is my view that our analysis of the economic spinoffs for the province of Quebec of the F-18 contract is very realistic. In our view, at least 48 per cent of these spinoffs will be located in the province of Quebec.

As we are all aware, the province of Quebec holds a very important place in this government's mind as far as the avionics industry is concerned. We intend to make the Quebec component of that industry a leading sector, while strengthening the industry throughout the country.

The hon. member also asked for details on the possible sites for the turbine blade and vane plant and the digital control machining centre. I can confirm to my hon. colleague that, quite evidently, the turbine blade and vane facility will be built in the eastern townships, although the exact site has not been determined yet. I regret to give the same answer as far as the site for the machining centre is concerned.

In his third question, my hon. colleague asked whether the PQ minister was given an opportunity to consult all the data on which was based our decision to award McDonnell Douglas the F-18 contract. According to my information, those ministers were offered a briefing just before the announcement. But later they were also given an opportunity to have exchanges and discussions between our officers and those of the Quebec government.

I would like to conclude my answer by confirming that in our view, and according to our rather involved analysis, the F-18 contract is a good opportunity for the industry in the province of Quebec and Canada as a whole.

Mr. Crouse:

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to ask a few questions this evening. Before doing so, I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I think this is the first time in my 23 years in the House of Commons that I have seen such a distinguished panel of ministers. All four are such a temptation-