Mr. Johnson:

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the statement the Hon. Member made in regard to salary protection, I have to ask him if it is not true that in the event of an economic slowdown and a severe recession that Crown corporations in the past have used large scale lay-offs as cost-cutting measures. Is it not also true that salaries and wages in major private couriers are indeed higher than the Government's own counterparts? Is it not true that after this Bill passes that out of the 17 major airlines in the world there will be only two that will be wholly state owned, that in is Russia and in China.

With regard to protection of the employees, how come the Opposition did not have any amendments to put forward to that effect in the clause by clause debate? The Official Opposition had one amendment to make, and did not even make it. A government Member had to introduce it after the Member of the Liberal Party sitting on the committee left the room. I do not know why he left, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if he was sulky or what it was. He said it was because we had already started. The opposition Member had the same notice as government Members that the committee meeting was convening at a certain time and we were there, but members of the Opposition left without even introducing their own amendment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

On a point of order the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.

Mr. MacLellan:

Such drivel, my God!

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence.

Mr. de Corneille:

First, it is generally the ruling of the Speaker that comments about a person's presence or absence are regarded as being out of order. This has been a most impolite comment that has been made about whether or not the Member was present.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

I do not know what happened in committee. This is the House of Commons. What happens in committee has nothing to do with the House of Commons. A committee is an arm of the House of Commons. Therefore, I hope that Hon. Members will keep their questions to what happens here. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence to complete his rebuttal to the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.

Mr. de Corneille:

I am glad you said that, Mr. Speaker, because I agree with you that it is most inappropriate to make comments about people's attendance in committee or in the House of Commons.

July 14, 1988

In terms of what was said about what other countries have, the thing that has to be said is what Canada has may be peculiar to a nation which has a very large geographical area and a very small population. What may apply to France does not apply to Canada.

Second, it is quite obvious, if there is nothing wrong then why fix it. For the reasons that I have cited one does not try to change something if there is nothing wrong with it. Over the years Air Canada has shown itself to be very competent and efficient.

I was asked about the salaries of employees and whether they would be dropped if there were some type of recession. As I pointed out, Crown corporations are less prone to start cutting because they would be cutting off routes if it were less efficient and less profitable than would be companies that do not have that mandate from the Government to perform. The whole point is that the Government of Canada has to mandate a protection of the remote parts of Canada whether or not those routes are always profitable. That is the Government's responsibility. The purpose of having a government is to look after the well being of the total population, not only those who are rich or happen to live in affluent areas.

This Government is not prepared to share the wealth with those areas that are less profitable. All this does is encourage Canadians in remote parts of the country to pour into the few cities, and that is not a direction that Canadian people want to have. That is why in this particular Bill there is another step in this direction. It is a negative direction and gives the message that the Government is not going to look after, encourage, and uphold the people in more remote parts of the country. Air Canada and Crown corporations will be less inclined to dismiss employees if their profits are threatened than companies that have to make it no matter what and have to survive because profit is their sole reason for existence.

Mr. MacLellan:

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and on a point of misinformation brought forward by the Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson). There was more than one amendment presented. The amendment that the Government accepted was the one that it thought it could take credit for, which is the snivelling attitude that prevailed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

That is not a point of order. I do not know what happened in committee. I would like to recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister for a question or comment.

Mr. Hawkes:

I found the Member's opening remarks rather outstanding in identifying a basic difference between the Government and the Opposition. Yesterday I talked about the Opposition being sloths-sleeping a lot, hanging upside down, and looking at the world upside down.

The Member said that an airline company that provided bad service and a bad safety record would produce maximum profit for shareholders. As someone who flies a lot, I would like to

say to the employees of Air Canada, Canadian Airlines International, Wardair, and the other airlines that, as a customer of airlines, the better your service, the better your safety record, the more likely I am to pick you to fly on.

I suggest that it is the view of the Government that the move in the direction of privatization of Air Canada and leaving it unfettered in the competitive world of the airlines is already producing for Canadian airline travellers lower prices, better service, more frequent service, and a better safety record. In a competitive world it matters that an airline serves its customers well. That is the consequence. Profits will flow if an airline serves its customers well. Profits will not flow if it does not.

I wanted to put on the record the clarity of the two views: the Opposition states that bad service and a bad safety record produces profits. I say that it does not. Good service and a good safety record produces profits for airlines.

Mr. de Corneille:

Indeed that would fit the philosophy of Adam Smith. That is a nice theoretical concept which is not borne out by the facts. It is tragic that the Hon. Member is unable and unwilling to look at the fact that cutting corners in order to be more competitive is an inevitable by-product that also comes from competition. Perhaps, in some cases there is cheaper service, but there is not safer service.

Those who are wealthy are in a position to be able to buy seats on airlines that have good records and will provide the service that they want in a nice, comfortable corridor between Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, and Quebec. But it does not guarantee and does not provide that safety for companies that are operating on a shoe-string budget that want to provide minimum service in order to be profitable in areas that are more remote.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

Comments are now terminated. Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) will have the floor when the debate resumes.

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.

Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):

Mr. Speaker, recently all Members of Parliament were sent a

July 14, 1988

spectacular poster depicting the giant Sitka spruce trees which grow in the Carmanah Valley of British Columbia. Unfortunately, the fate of these trees is very much in doubt.

MacMillan Bloedel has been granted a tree-farming licence for the area. To its credit, MacMillan Bloedel has placed a self-imposed moratorium on any logging or road-building operations. However, that moratorium will expire as of June 18.

Various conservation groups from divergent parts of Canada such as the Western Canada Wilderness Committee of Vancouver, B.C., and Nature Action of St. Bruno, Quebec, have requested assistance from Members of Parliament in their fight to save the valley and these magnificent trees. At present, consultations are going on between MacMillan Bloedel and interested groups on how many hectares of this part of Canada's ecological heritage can be saved from the loggers' chainsaws.

I would like to add my voice to the campaign to have the Carmanah Valley preserved, and I ask and invite other Members of this House to lend their support. Hopefully, the Government will see fit to step in and add the valley to the Pacific Rim National Park before it is too late.

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):

Mr. Speaker, "It's one, two, three and you're out at the old ball game"! And that is the way it was at the annual softball game last night between the all-Party "Expo" MPs and the "Blue Jay" Pages, played on the front lawn through the courtesy of our Hon. Speaker, with equipment secured and loaned by our co-operating security staff.

The game featured two home runs by Expos: The Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Moore) and the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud), while Page Stephen Cassivi walloped the ball into the tulip patch. An outstanding pick-up by Page Suh Won Kim of a hard hit grounder brought applause from all sides as did a magnificent catch by Page Byron Horner. Every Page and every MP played magnificently.

The game featured happiness, goodwill and sportsmanship. Our esteemed Pages demonstrated that they not only perform with excellence in this Chamber but are able to carry the same expertise into all phases of their lives. Three cheers for our Pages!

Hear, hear!