1976-10-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that this government has so badly mismanaged the supply of swine flu vaccine to provincial health departments as to render a mass vaccination program extremely difficult at this date, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this House express its displeasure at the large waste of public resources entailed by the failure of the government to supply A/New Jersey '76 vaccine to the provinces for delivery in mid-September as originally promised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD   SUGGEST REVIEW OF BOARD'S DECISION ON TEACHERS' SALARIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a question of urgent and pressing necessity. As the majority of the Anti-Inflation Board's decisions concerning the legally binding teachers' salary agreements arbitrated in British Columbia in 1975 have been handed down, and as the AIB has ordered the school boards and teachers' associations of British Columbia to renegotiate the 1976 agreements, something that cannot legally be done, thus creating chaos in British Columbia's educational system, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House urge the Minister of Finance to order a review of these decisions.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the threat of closure of Labrador Linerboard Mill in Stephenville, Newfoundland next year threatens the livelihood of some 1,000 citizens both in the plant and in woodcutting operations, but more particularly it will affect the economic and social structure of that part of the province.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That the matter be the subject of immediate priority of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to determine the alternatives necessary to revitalize the operation of the mill, and that immediate discussion be initiated with the province of Newfoundland to assist in alternative planning.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Hon. members will be aware of a tragic shooting in Brampton earlier this week where there were two murders and one suicide. This was the second tragedy in this city in recent months, and this particular one was caused by a person who had purchased a high powered rifle immediately before the act, allegedly specifically to commit the act.
80001-37'/2
October 28, 1976

Mr. Speaker, if parliament is to regain effective control of government spending then the practices that Mr. Henderson described must stop immediately. I am here tonight in an attempt to find out what the government's intentions are with regard to the office of the Auditor General and government spending. To allow a continuation of government spending without complete details beforehand would be tantamount to giving a blessing to continued uncontrolled government spending.
For the record, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make mention of the fact that in its references to the Auditor General there is no mention whatsoever of Crown corporations and how the government intends to bring about more effective control within these corporations. Air Canada is a prime example of a Crown corporation which is plagued by poor financial administration, and incidentally is audited by a private firm on contract with the government. When one takes into consideration that there are eight Crown corporations and public instrumentalities of which the Auditor General is neither the auditor nor joint auditor, then, Mr. Speaker, I say that the government is abrogating its responsibility and should take the necessary action to rectify the situation.
The government has a moral obligation to the people of Canada to deal effectively with the financial fiasco it has created. When the Auditor General stated that the present state of financial management and control systems of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada is significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness,
I am sure that he expected action from the government to change this state of affairs. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, in replying to a question from the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee as to whether or not the Auditor General could assure parliament that the financial statements of the government are accurate, the Auditor General replied:
We feel very strongly about the fact that unless the systems are corrected the day may well come when I cannot give a clear certificate on the accounts of Canada.
Adjournment Debate
With that statement in mind I can only re-emphasize my earlier comments that the government should make clear its intentions with regard to the office of the Auditor General.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) has expressed concern about this matter on several occasions. He raised it in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. He also asked a question on October 25 which the minister answered and, within the format at that particular time, stated that there would be legislation. I should like to reiterate his comments dealing with the implementation of the Wilson Committee recommendations when he stated that a new auditor general's act will be tabled in the House very shortly.
The legislation has now been drafted after very careful consideration of each of the recommendations contained in the report of the Wilson Committee. Some of the proposals contained in the report are complex, and required extensive consultation among the parties involved, including the Auditor General of Canada. I can assure the hon. member that the legislation will clarify the duties and responsibilities of that officer of Parliament and will provide him with a better means of fulfilling his important function.
I am happy to say that the legislation fully reflects the spirit of the Wilson Committee report and that the consultations that I have mentioned have produced what are felt to be significant contributions to the quality of the legislation. I am convinced that, following the parliamentary review of this bill-and I hope the hon. member will participate-all members will agree that we will have the most modern and comprehensive law concerning the role and responsibility of a parliamentary auditor which is in existence anywhere. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, since I have mentioned that the legislation will shortly be presented to the House, i am sure you will agree that further discussion of the details of the new act should be deferred until that time.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.
572

October 28, 1976
Adjournment Debate
availability of the proper vaccine for adequate protection of the Canadian population against influenza.
We appreciate very much the presence in the Chamber at this late hour of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). I am sure he will shed some light on this subject.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) for giving us an opportunity to discuss this subject. I wish that he, as an able medical doctor, had been consulted by the CBC in which case the corporation might not have included an irresponsible statement in its program on the subject last Monday.
This afternoon I tabled the most recent report of the National Advisory Committee on Immunizing Agents. These recommendations relate to the 1976-77 influenza immunization program, and I have accepted them in their entirety. They have been transmitted to the provincial ministers of health for their information and I have expressed my hope the provinces will look upon the committee's recommendations with favor.
It will be noted that the recommendations are substantially the same as those presented following the committee's meeting in June. The only essential differences are specific recommendations for the use of bivalent vaccine in children suffering from chronic neuromuscular disorders, cancer, and conditions involving biological defence mechanisms. While routine vaccination of school children is not recommended, special formulations of the vaccines are being prepared for those under twenty years of age with specific chronic illnesses. In reviewing its recommendations the committee endorsed the utilization of vaccine, both bivalent and monovalent, as supplies become available. The committee gave due consideration to alternatives to its recommended program, especially the question of stockpiling monovalent A/New Jersey vaccine and its utilization if further evidence of "swine influenza" activity became available.
The committee did not consider stockpiling to be a viable option for a variety of reasons: first, because influenza caused by a new virus spreads throughout the population with great rapidity and the possibility of receiving a sufficiently early warning by the isolation of virus from the first case is very remote. Secondly, laboratory identification of the virus takes a minimum of ten days and further time will elapse to investigate the case in order to ensure that it has been spread from person to person. A third important factor is that it has been estimated a minimum time lag of five to eight weeks is likely after a decision to mobilize stockpiled vaccine before the vaccine can be administered to all those wishing to receive it and they have had time to develop protective levels of antibody.
All lots of influenza vaccine sold in Canada must be approved by the health protection branch on a lot by lot basis. No lot will be released unless it meets the high Canadian standards required of all vaccines. I can assure all hon. mem-

bers that there will be no weakening of these standards. The first lots of vaccine were approved for distribution today.
AUDITOR GENERAL-IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW COMMITTEE-GOVERNMENT POSITION	'


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of my remarks in the debate on the Speech from the Throne I stated that I had serious reservations about the section in the Speech from the Throne having reference to the Auditor General. The Liberal government has all too often in the past totally ignored the recommendations of the Auditor General and continued on its spending binge. We on this side of the House have advocated the strengthening of the office of the Auditor General for quite some time; however, to date little action has been taken. Now that the government is devoid of any new ideas it is blatantly embracing a Progressive Conservative policy when it promises the following in the throne speech:
You will be asked to consider a bill designed to clarify the duties and responsibilities of the Auditor General of Canada, and to provide him with better means of fulfilling his important function as a servant of parliament.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, we hope that its intentions are sincere. However, when I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) on October 25 what the intentions of the government were in regard to implementing any of the 47 recommendations contained in the report of the independent review committee on the office of the Auditor General he gave me a very non-committal answer. I contend that in light of the recent criticisms by the Auditor General with regard to the government's financial mismanagement and poor control practices, this government should make clear to this House its intentions in regard to the report of the independent review committee on the office of the Auditor General, and indeed its intentions with regard to past recommendations of the Auditor General.
To be more specific, Mr. Speaker, the government could add a lot of credence to its pronouncement on the Auditor General of Canada if it were to take to heart the Auditor General's statement that parliament has lost effective control over government spending. This government must take the action to guarantee detailed financial statements of every government department, Crown corporation, and agency, and prior to actual expenditures being made. By "detailed" I mean something more than a general review. The day has come when members of this House will no longer accept financial statements that are chock full of miscellaneous and other headings to gloss over expenditures.
In a recent column in Macleans the former Auditor General, Maxwell Henderson, wrote:
It is the attitude in the top echelons of the federal public service that explains why our M.P.s are given so little hard information about government spending. At the same time, cabinet has little patience with parliamentary questioning. It upsets the political and bureaucratic timetables, even though it seldom alters the government's intentions. This is why more and more frequently now the Trudeau government provides to the House of Commons only the bare minimum of information about its proposed spending.
October 28, 1976

ment, but simply common sense and justice for our Canadian growers.
One more example lies in the dairy industry. This has been mentioned previously. It is important to the area I represent, parts of Norfolk and all of Haldimand County, which is noted for dairy production, primarily fluid milk, but also industrial milk which is used in the production of cheese.
Perhaps the matter of cheese production is more important in eastern Ontario and Quebec than in my area. However, 1 might point out that at the same time as dairy producers were being asked to take severe cuts in their quotas, cheese was pouring into Canada, and I use the word pouring advisedly, in direct competition. When we consider that it takes ten pounds of milk to make a pound of cheese, we can easily see the effect this importation had on milk production in Canada.
Time and again my colleagues rose in this House to demand some action with regard to the importation that was damaging our cheese industry.
I was not going to mention any more examples, but there is one other about which 1 wrote to the minister several times. I refer to bulk honey brought into Canada from Argentina. This is repacked by, I believe, Billy Bee in Toronto. It is not sold directly as a product of Canada, but the advertising indicates that it could well be a product of Canada. The poor consumer could not make a distinction. After making an investigation, the minister claimed that the action of the importer of honey from Argentina was within the law. People in my area who produce honey still have serious reservations about this.
The general theme that has run through all of the remarks tonight has been one of tariff protection to save Canadian agriculture. If we destroy the will and the ability of the Canadian farmer to produce agricultural food products, we are ultimately doing a disservice to the Canadian consumer. If you think this is not true, just look at the number of auction sales throughout rural Canada. A number of farmers are selling out, going out of business. Some are selling their land to developers. Some are moving into the cities to get a job that pays decent money because the government protects other industries but will not protect agriculture. If we allow this trend to continue, the Canadian consumer will be at the mercy of importers from foreign countries.
The present tariff policy will not do any favour to the Canadian consumer in the l(?ng term. If the government is bent on a cheap food policy, then let all segments of the economy bear their fair share of the cost. Agriculture is staggering under the burden of producing cheap food. Let us take the burden of cheap food off the backs of the farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger).


Mr. Schellenberger:: Mr. Speaker, there are only a few minutes remaining. Rather than break up my remarks, may I call it ten o'clock?
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, as you are
aware I have raised twice in this session of parliament important questions concerning the status of mass immunization against swine influenza.
The health authorities at various levels of government, and indeed most Canadians, have an important health decision to make this fall-to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, or to be vaccinated or not be vaccinated. To be specific, one must decide whether to give a vaccination for protection against a possible outbreak caused by the A/New Jersey/76 Virus, better known as swine flu.
The federal government has taken the initiative and given leadership to the provinces in sponsoring an ambitious, bold, and great undertaking in the field of preventive medicine. It is by preventive medicine and health care that the economic burden of illness will be lightened and the tragedy and waste of disease and death reduced.
Influenza has apparently plagued mankind throughout history. However, the great influenza pandemic that swept the world in 1918-19, commonly known as the Spanish flu and today referred to as swine flu, killed 20 million persons, outnumbering World War 1 fatalities by more than two to one.
In February, 1976, a new strain of human influenza virus identified as A/New Jersey/76 and called the swine flu virus was isolated in a few outbreaks among U.S.A. army recruits at Fort Dix, New Jersey. This virus infected about 500 people and took the life of one recruit. Moreover, the outbreak at Fort Dix was a mixed outbreak of swine flu and A-Victoria-3-75 viruses.
On previous occasions when a new major antigenic variant of influenza A virus has been recognized in the human population it has subsequently given rise to a world-wide epidemic. From past experience and present knowledge, it was only prudent to develop a mass vaccination program to protect Canadians against the new strain of influenza virus, especially since the World Health Organization on April 8, 1976, had issued a world-wide alert against a possible swine flu outbreak and urged national health ministries to prepare contingency plans. This program is not without its problems and critics, but action must be taken and problems explained after proper consultation, or else confusion, doubt, and damage to health might follow. That is why I asked questions on October 15 and 27 about the current status of the mass immunization program, and especially about any precautions taken and the

October 28, 1976
Customs Tariff
This problem is of great concern to the Automotive Industries Association of Canada, Manitoba division, because of the unfair treatment accorded Manitoba manufacturing and distributing companies and its inflationary influence. Ultimately it means all businesses in this area in the automotive and farm replacement parts market and finally all consumers supporting those businesses will be adversely affected.
The Automotive Industries Association of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, which represents the 2.8 billion replacement parts industry in Canada made up of more than 700 member companies and 250,000 people employed by those companies, supports our position fully.
The letter ends with the words:
We believe this situation warrants your consideration and attention.
The letter was forwarded to me by Mr. Dan McKenzie, president of the association in Manitoba. I should appreciate it if the minister would give the matter his immediate attention. The difficulty for the Manitoba division of the association is serious.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly on Bill C-15 and wish to place special emphasis on the effect on Canadian agriculture of the operation of the customs tariff, a theme developed by previous speakers.
I am concerned about the methods with which we implement tariffs of a temporary nature, that is, increase duties on certain commodities in order to meet an emergency in Canadian agriculture. At present, I submit our system is too cumbersome. Approval for an increase in tariffs necessary to protect a Canadian farm crop is too long in coming. As always, it is too little and too late. It is too late to protect Canadian agriculture. This applies especially to the Canadian farmer producing fruit and vegetables.
In spring and early summer, when our home-grown produce comes on the market, similar produce from the United States and Mexico still flows into this country and destroys the market for our own farmers. At any rate such foreign produce undermines the market for the first crop harvested by Canadian farmers in the spring. Protection is too little, and comes too late.
Present policies have a disastrous effect on Canadian farmers. They destroy the farmers' will to compete and produce food in Canada. What I mean is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that it took the government a long time to curb the importation of Oceanic beef. I will not go into the subject in detail, since it has already been elaborated on, but it took the government two or three years to enforce, not a tariff but a quota. I say this to show how long it takes the government to act in a time of difficulty for agriculture.
I respectfully suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), or senior officials of his department, should have some input with respect to any decision to impose temporary tariffs for the protection of agriculture. Right now our procedures before the Tariff Board take too long.
Let us examine the effect of tariffs on sWe Canadian products to illustrate the irreparable damage which has been done in many cases. As hon. members know, I come from an
(Mr. McKenzie.]
area which produces tobacco. In the tobacco industry we employ strippers-that term has been used several times recently. It carries no moral connotation. Strippers are merely people who strip the leaf from the tobacco after it has been cured. In the last few years the importation of leaf tobacco into Canada has increased by some 1,086 per cent. This has been happening at the same time as Canadian farmers have been producing the same quality of tobacco, at prices just as attractive. The Ontario flu-cured marketing board cannot understand how the government can permit the importation of leaf tobacco which competes directly with our own tobacco in our own markets.
It is true that there is now in place a specific duty of 15 cents a pound on leaf tobacco coming into Canada. That was of some use a number of years ago when tobacco sold at 30 to 40 cents a pound. Now it is selling at 90 cents to $1 a pound. Therefore 15 cents is not much of a barrier against the importation of leaf tobacco.
The effect on the tobacco farmer is simple. We have been forced to cut our production by 50 per cent. This represents a drop in income to the Canadian tobacco farmer of about 50 per cent. When you look at the effect of the whole economy in the tobacco growing area, it becomes serious. I also remind the government that the total take in excise tax, both federal and provincial, is well over $1 billion. Therefore the federal government and governments at all levels should do something to protect this industry which is so lucrative for the Department of National Revenue.
Let us look at the lack of protection for the apple growing industry. The County of Norfolk is noted for its apples. I always compete with the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) and the B.C. apples. In any event, we grow pretty good apples in Norfolk County.
The apple growers have been under duress caused by a dumping of apple products. I refer specifically to the dumping of apple concentrate by Italy a year or two ago. With the addition of a little water you had reconstituted apple juice which was sold all across Canada in direct competition with that which is produced here. This was also mentioned by my colleague, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain). The apple grower is certainly drastically affected by poor management of our tariff structure.
In the same vein a similar type of competition was experienced by tomato growers who supply canning factories in Ontario and, in fact, throughout Canada. The health of that industry has been severely damaged. Tomato paste has been imported from Mexico which is easily reconstituted into catsup, tomato juice, and other such products. We are not afforded protection. As everyone knows, there is an abundance of cheap labour in Mexico.
There is no need for a permanent tariff. We simply have to make an application of a tariff to give our Canadian producers fair competition with imported products, nothing that will damage our relationship as signatories to the GATT agree-
October 28, 1976

It is very easy to set out some great pattern of world trade and demand the elimination of tariff barriers for commodities and manufactured or semi-manufactured goods, but it is very difficult in a country like this to go to the people with such a suggestion. I have talked to groups in my constituency who are very conscious of the problems in other parts of the world. They tell me they are willing to lower their standard of living in order to help those other countries. That is a problem 1 wrestled with for a while, Mr. Speaker. I admired that spirit, but it seemed to me that if there are individuals in the country who are willing to lower their standard of living for the sake of others, they can. There are many non-governmental agencies to which one can make donations or give some assistance or aid in order to develop other parts of the world. Because we have the kind of democratic system that promises opportunity to its people, I doubt whether it is possible to go to the people and say that we are initiating a trade policy which is going to reduce the standard of living of Canadians.
I think one of the problems of the world is that too few nations are moving toward the kind of democratic system that gives people a real choice in the kind of government they have, and in the policies of the government. If the situation were otherwise, and if democracy seemed to be spreading throughout the world, then we would have more cause to be optimistic about the world trading picture.
I feel we will need a tariff policy for many years to come and that no country can yet afford to destroy its own industries in the hope that this will somehow benefit other parts of the world. If we destroy our agriculture we will not strengthen Chad, Somalianor Mali, but we would certainly give a great boost to the Common Market and our neighbour to the south. Those areas would then be much freer to trade in the world.
When we are competing with countries at least as sophisticated and in many cases more industrialized than Canada we must be cautious and make sure that our agriculture can compete. There is not much point in having lovely rural areas if they are deserted and unproductive. The food shortage will catch up to the world, and I am sure we will be called upon to play a far more important role in feeding the world than at present. It would be a grave mistake if we were to allow agriculture in this country to decline to the point where we could no longer play that role.
This concludes what I want to say on the subject of customs tariff although I have not touched on areas like manufactured goods and a variety of other things. We must be very conscious of the primary industry of this country, however. I represent a constituency in a province where most of the primary industries are in trouble-lumber, agriculture, tourism. Coal mining is the one bright spot but even that has had some unfortunate strikes, partly brought about by inequities in this government's anti-inflation program. It might be possible to be cheerful and optimistic if only one primary industry were in trouble, but when the trouble affects almost all of the primary industries then the province and, I suggest, the country are in a dangerous situation indeed.
I suppose to many poorer nations of the world Canada appears safe, secure, solid and substantial. But I know that many businesses, many industries, are merely hanging on. Their ability to remain in operation and provide employment to Canadians depends on this bill. I ask the minister to review and consider carefully some parts of it because we cannot afford to lose more; particularly in agriculture we cannot afford to lose more than we have already lost.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-15, an act to amend the customs tariff. I wish to show how the government is discriminating against a Manitoba industry, the Automotive Industries Association of Canada, Manitoba division. May I quote a letter I received recently from that association. The association says:
We wish to draw to your attention a serious problem working against the best interest of the citizens of Manitoba and of Manitoba industry engaged in the automotive replacement market.
The association points out that it is discriminated against
... in such a way that the result is manufacturers and distributors are placed in a position of being non-competitive with similar businesses located elsewhere in Canada. The current action of the customs and excise division if continued may also result in Manitobans paying up to 20 per cent more for the same products being sold at lower prices in other provinces. The highly inflationary effect is obvious as is the adverse effect on Manitoba industry.
The letter goes on to say:
The problem arises from customs and excise in Ottawa, and enforced by that same department in Winnipeg, unilaterally and without any advance notice to the importers, placing interpretations on the customs act, and administering the automotive and tractor sections of the act, in a manner contrary to what was done over the previous 40 years and, with some minor exceptions, contrary to what is being done in other areas of Canada. By refusing to allow entry into Manitoba at the import duty rates being allowed elsewhere in Canada and claiming up to 15 per cent additional import duties on shipments cleared in the Manitoba region, customs and excise places importers based in Manitoba at a disadvantage and causes rapid escalation of prices. Additional duties are being claimed on goods of a kind not made in Canada as well as those that are, over and above what has been the traditional rates for many years.
The current situation is obviously unfair. Attempts to have the situation corrected through contact with local customs and excise officials as well as those in Ottawa have produced no results and not even acknowledgement that an unjust situation exists.
I find it extraordinary that the department would not even acknowledge the existence of a problem this big. I continue quoting:
We are, therefore, appealing to our member of parliament, the press and other media, to assist in getting immediate action to correct an unjust and discriminatory situation.
I hope the minister will pay particular attention to my representation this evening. The association went to great lengths in an attempt to get action. It asks for immediate action to correct an unjust and discriminatory situation. I continue quoting from the letter:
Detailed documentary evidence is available from several manufacturers and distributors in Winnipeg to fully support the foregoing statements.
We are asking for your understanding and support and your assistance in bringing this to the attention of those concerned in Ottawa to rectify this situation immediately.

October 28, 1976
Customs Tariff
people will begin to wonder who actually owns the farmland and the farming resources of this country.
To some extent we have a beef industry in the north Okanagan as well as a dairy industry, and there have been continuing problems. We have been hearing about competition from offshore beef which has been permitted to come into the country. That price has been kept down so that the government can suggest that its anti-inflation program is really working, but it is working at the expense at one of the primary industries of Canada, which we cannot really afford to have disappear.
The federal government encouraged the dairy industry to increase production in British Columbia, and the producers there reacted in a most extraordinary fashion, to the point where production almost exploded. Then the federal government changed its subsidy program overnight into a program of penalty, and producers were left with surpluses of milk which they could not sell except at a price which really was a penalty. That would have put them out of business in a very short time, and some then turned to hog production because one thing you can do with surplus milk is feed it to pigs.
It is even more inexplicable to lower the duty on hog production and to allow competition at a time when the dairy industry very much needs protection for those who could go into that as a side interest to use up some of their surplus milk. We have heard a great deal about this strange development in the hog industry. As I listened to the minister announce that change, I could not understand because the timing was most inauspicious.
I would like to change the subject for a moment. We face an extreme paradox when we discuss customs and tariffs at all at a time when in world forums we are discussing, along with the other nations of the world, the new international economic order. There has been passing reference to it and some mention of free trade, and I noticed that the speaker who preceded me entirely rejected free trade as being a possibility because he comes from a part of the country where economic development is essential. The economic development of his area has not kept pace with the central or western parts of Canada.
Yet a variety of spokesmen for the government have committed themselves to the new international economic order. I spent a week at the United Nations, and the subject was discussed there to some extent. We know that a group of nations gathered at Manila in January and February of 1976, and they set out a Manila Declaration and Program of Action. The group has been known as the group of 77 because 77 nations gathered there. They made enormous demands of the developed nations of the world. When I was at the United Nations I learned that that group has now grown to 115. That group is asking for a complete restructuring of world trade.
I have travelled widely and have visited some of the countries which we call underdeveloped. I know the appalling need and the vast range between rich and poor, and I have seen misery at First hand. One cannot but have some sympathy for

those nations that are now rejecting the old aid programs and demanding instead a complete restructuring of the world's trading patterns.
An article in "The Canadian Business Review," Volume 3, 1976, entitled "The New International Economic Order And Its Implications For Canada" makes some telling points. It states:
The Canadian government has indicated in broad terms an acceptance of the need to establish a New International Economic Order.
Our spokesmen have been seriously involved, and the former secretary of state for external affairs who has been-I would not want to use the word "demoted"-who has been shifted to House leader was co-chairman of the North-South conference. This is another international conference which goes along more or less continuously with the UNCTAD conference which is held from time to time. Perhaps the terminology is poor but the north represents the developed countries and the south the underdeveloped countries. However, this conference has bogged down, and I think one of the problems is that few countries in the world have the democratic process which we appreciate in this country. It is here that tariffs and customs come into play. It is easy to advocate the total restructuring of the economic system of the world but it is not so easy in a country such as Canada.
The article states at page 20:
Nevertheless, the proposals for the establishment of a New International Economic Order are of great significance for Canadians. Canada will be directly affected by any major attempt at restructuring the system through which international flows of goods and services, capital and technology take place. Perhaps more than any other developed country, Canada's own interest in the reform of the international system is ambivalent.
We play a dual role. In some ways we are a developed, sophisticated, industrialized nation, but in certain areas of Canada we are underdeveloped, undeveloped, and primitive. We have vast areas that cry for development, for job opportunities, for a status they do not have because the industrial area of Canada is concentrated mainly in the eastern provinces.
How can and how does a country which is a democracy go to its people and say: we are asking you to give us your permission to introduce policies on trade that will lower the standard of living in the country as a whole? I simply do not believe that is possible.
I think it is one of the problems of the world today that so many nations, particularly those that form the group of 77, do not themselves know anything like the democratic process where they must seek the will of the population before making trade decisions. Certainly that is not the policy in that other great trading bloc, the Soviet Union, the communist countries of eastern Europe, and mainland China. Again some sort of reference to popular elections, an opposition, and a parliamentary system where it is assumed governments will alternate from time to time-unfortunately in Canada they have not alternated frequently enough in the last few years-this type of system is unknown in many countries of the world.
October 28, 1976

to blackmail the agricultural industry in the north Okanagan can call a dock tie-up in the fall of the year when the fruit crop is moving to market and, if there is an interruption of even one year, a market can be lost and it can take many years of persistent negotiation to get it back again.
I have always had the greatest regard for the B.C. fruit producers for the way in which they have aggressively marketed Okanagan apples around the world and the way in which they have continued to hold a place and to develop a product that is second to none anywhere in the world, one that can compete with the very best quality and at the highest possible prices. This aspect of agriculture in British Columbia is not always understood even by British Columbians. I am referring to the fact that in so highly competitive an industry you cannot simply produce a poor product and ship it out cheaply. It would not pay any longer because the costs all the way along the line have risen so sharply that you must produce the sort of product that can command a price which would cover the cost of the production and shipping.
Therefore the industry needs in effect a kind of protection, particularly against a process we know as dumping, which still goes on and against which we have developed machinery which is not quite sophisticated enough as yet. It seems to take a little too long to trigger the formula that will put barriers into place with respect to such products as cherries, which are an important crop in the region, where we are in competition not with underdeveloped countries in the far corners of the world but with the United States next door.
This problem has been referred to by a good many other speakers in the course of the evening and we must always keep in mind that the U.S. can produce virtually everything that we can produce, bring it on the market a little earlier, and cream off the top price at the beginning of the season. They can then shore up the shortcomings by dumping on the Canadian market at a lower price than that for which they produce their products, thus providing a floor for the industry back home. This is one aspect of which we must be careful. We have heard other examples.
My colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker), has already mentioned the problem with potatoes and the type of potatoes known as stripper potatoes. I have had various people in the last day or two ask me what a stripper potato is. There is nothing immoral about it at all, it is just a little lower grade, but it is the kind of potato which, if moved across the border to British Columbia, provides competition that is too stiff for local producers, and yet we can grow excellent potatoes in the dry valleys of British Columbia, as we do, and process them.
Again another factor enters here which has really nothing to do with tariff and customs, although that is closely related. There are several federal programs that have failed to reach British Columbia in any significant amount. One of these is the DREE program where we find that some agreements have not yet been entered into with British Columbia, and for the last several years virtually no funding through that program has been available for industries in British Columbia in the
Customs Tariff
agricultural region which have wished to start up or expand. In most cases it is a question of expanding or replacing worn out facilities. It is not just the prices in the agricultural industry, not just the price that can be obtained for the goods produced which is the problem there.
The price of money is one of the things which is of paramount importance to agriculture in B.C. When every other part of Canada can be developing processing facilities with grants from the federal government-not just low interest loans, but outright grants-these have not been available to the agricultural producing areas of B.C. for many years. Any co-operative or individual who has wanted to increase processing facilities has had to go to the regular money market for all of his needs. So we have the whole question of interest rates on loans as opposed to federal government grants, and the problem continues to exacerbate the situation of the agricultural developers and growers in British Columbia.
The brief goes on to talk about the B.C. Land Commission and the need to retain as much land as possible for agriculture. I do not think anybody denies that basic truth, but the brief goes on to say:
In addition to preserving all existing farmland and doing everything possible to encourage all available agricultural land to be in full production, we propose that the provincial government create a new program designed to convert Crown land now unfit for agricultural use into usable farmland. This program could include terracing hillsides, reclaiming land that did not disturb natural wildlife shelters, irrigating otherwise useless land, and in general, making as much land now considered marginal or useless for farming as productive as possible.
On the surface that is all very worthy. The next line reads as follows:
If this program provided meaningful jobs at union wages, we believe the program could really benefit our province for years to come.
The point made there is that if such land which is not now under production were brought in at that price, with all the necessary things which it is suggested would be needed, then it could never pay at the prices which are currently obtainable for agricultural products. It would have to be used for some other purpose. It would have to be sold for housing tracts or industrial development. It would have to serve some purpose other than agriculture, because by the time the agricultural potential of the land has been created at disastrous labour costs, in effect it would be prevented from serving an agricultural role.
One of the difficulties which besets the farmer, and one of the reasons why he must keep a close eye on tariff and customs provisions of the federal government is his enormous investment or accrued value in his farm. If the farm was developed by his grandfather and handed down to him by his father, and if it was developed years ago when land was worth relatively little and could be cleared for very little, then he finds himself holding on to an asset so valuable that in effect he cannot begin to obtain through agriculture anything like a good return from it. This is a problem which is becoming more and more acute in British Columbia, and it will not be long before

October 28, 1976
Customs Tariff
carefully because it did not at all illustrate that we were winning the battle with inflation in Canada even though we might have had some lower food prices here at that time. What it illustrated was the degree to which European agriculture is protected and the level of the support, in the sense that people in those nations were willing to pay in prices as well as in subsidy for their extremely progressive and highly developed agricultural industry.
My NDP opponent did not seem to realize that, although we have many Canadian farmers and they are progressive and aggressive, they were in direct competition with European agriculture in respect of almost everything they raised.
I am afraid our geography is taught very badly in our schools, by and large. Europe looks very small on the map and our students have a tendency, because of the size of Canada, to assume that the populations and density of Europe are so great that the entire continent involves buildings, pavement, and parks and that there could not possibly be any room left for agriculture. However, I have been to the lovely continent of Europe and have been impressed anew with the size, scope and prosperity of its agriculture. This summer it seems to have had a bit of a set-back entirely due to a rather marked shift in the weather. It is a little too early to say whether or not there is a shift in climate as well, but certainly there has been a shift in the weather.
1 was in Europe again about a year ago. I went there entirely on my own. It was not in any way an official trip. My wife and I spent some time in West Germany and observed again the marvellous productivity of the German farming community and the large herds of red and white cattle. We were able to travel from there by bus through Switzerland.
Although I had read a good deal about the Brown Swiss and had seen that breed of cattle I had no idea how many Brown Swiss could be accommodated in Switzerland until I travelled through the valleys there. One could see very clearly in the course of those travels why the Canadian dairy producer has such a difficult time disposing of his surplus milk powder anywhere in the world once the dairies of Europe begin to cut the price.
Sometimes I believe many Canadians live in sort of a fairyland in regard to agriculture in the world today. There is an assumption that somehow we should be able to compete and develop utterly in isolation, without an awareness of the kind of competition which could come not from the developing countries of the world as much as from the most highly developed parts of the world. We are in agricultural competition with such countries as Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. One might think that the competition would come from the more primitive regions of the world, but that is not the case.
We are in competition with the developed, sophisticated people who seem to be light years ahead of us in preventing our products from moving into their countries as compared with their products moving into this country. This has been

one of the features of international trade that has always left me rather breathless.
I have visited the northern island of Japan which has a fruit industry comparable to the fruit industry in several regions in Canada. No apple of ours can find its way into the market over there. They will not run the risk of obtaining a codling moth with a box of apples from Canada, so they manage very effectively to keep our product out. We have never developed a good excuse for keeping their product out of this country. The same argument is applied by Australia and New Zealand occasionally. It is much easier to have the ubiquitous Granny Smith apples showing up in Canada than to get a Canadian Macintosh, Spartan or Red Delicious appearing in Australia or New Zealand. I have always wondered at the injustice of that and why it is that we accept exclusion from other markets that are in competition with us and, at the same time, we do not exclude the products of those countries here.
I represent an area that is part of a very large and diverse constituency. Part of it is one of the garden areas in Canada which still produces a significant fruit crop and, some vegetables, and still has a fine dairy industry, but particularly in vegetables the production is not as good as could be hoped. Yet there is a dream, a hope, and a great deal of romantic feeling about the whole agricultural industry in the area.
I have just received a brief prepared for the government of British Columbia by an organization that calls itself the North Okanagan Aid Society. I will get in touch with these people because I would like very much to talk to them. I have read their brief to the British Columbia government and in some ways I scarcely know where to begin to talk to them about a variety of points which they made. To start with, of course, I think the brief has been sent to the wrong government. If they were truly interested in some of the key and significant factors in agricultural development in British Columbia, the brief should have been directed to the government here in Ottawa. It should have been directed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) because it is here that so many decisions are made which weigh so heavily upon the agricultural industry in my home province.
But when the group preparing the brief refers to agriculture, they say that they urged the British Columbia government to develop programs to encourage agricultural producers of all kinds, such as producers of vegetables, fruit, grain, etc-all these can be produced in the Okanagan-to have their crops processed and sold in British Columbia, the surpluses to be sent to other markets only after the needs of our province have been met. One can see immediately that the persons writing that have not taken a very close look at modern marketing in agriculture because, if we know one thing in the Okanagan about markets, we know that you cannot enter them and leave them, and re-enter them and leave them.
If you have a market, you have to maintain it and ship to it each year, and you have to be certain that you can guarantee arrival. This is one of the reasons that we are so vulnerable to strikes in the essential services, because anyone really wanting
October 28, 1976

to take off from their traditional economic base into some sort of meaningful development.
On the other hand I think that part of Canada's industrial strategy has to consider the various sectors of the economy and how they can become more efficient without being overly dependent upon continous tariff and non-tariff protection. The practical way, it seems to me, is to do this on a sector by sector basis, and establish time frames such as five to seven years in order to accomplish these goals.
The most respectable argument for protection is always the one made by Alexander Hamilton, when the United States was beginning its nationhood, and that is the protection of infant industries. One of the reasons that John Turner can say, now that he is out of the House, as he said the other day, that under confederation the province that has profited most has been the province of Ontario is that in Canada, and especially in central Canada, part of our trouble has been that infant manufacturing industries have never fully grown up because they have been overly protected. Therefore they have been relatively inefficient in international competition.
In this connection I think most Canadians would welcome a change in the United States-Canada auto pact that would allow Canadian consumers to buy cars without having to pay the 15 per cent tariff duty. It makes little sense for cars produced in North America to have a $300 to $700 differential as between Canadian and U.S. prices, especially since the tariff is not really protective of Canadian jobs. The pact should, of course, make sure that Canadian jobs in the automobile industry are protected, but I see no relationship between that and the tariff duty as it is now applied.
I liked what Mr. John MacDonald, the head of the Canadian Export Corporation, said the other day at a meeting of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, which I wish I could have attended. Mr. MacDonald said:
There are opportunities in the Atlantic provinces to capture the opportunities opening up in international markets. The value added to the primary products of your forestry, agricultural, fisheries and mining resources should not be lost to the secondary manufacturing capabilities of foreign countries. Those capabilities should be established here, the plant, the equipment, the skills, the management and marketing expertise.
To which, Mr. Speaker, I say Amen. One of the great opportunities to help the Atlantic region, and especially Nova Scotia, is for the Canadian government to go the extra mile to make sure that a new international steel complex is located in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. It could at one and the same time reverse the historic "have-not" role of Nova Scotia in Canada's confederation; and equalization payments, for example, could disappear within the next decade or two. With the shortages expected in Canadian steel capacity in the 1980's this could make a real contribution to our balance of payments situation that could be critical. This is the situation because as much as 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the production of Cansteel will be exported and thus earn important dollars for the Canadian economy.
Customs Tariff
For those members who are not familiar with Cansteel may I say it is a consortium of steel companies including Dofasco of Hamilton, Ontario, and two of the largest European producers, one German and one Dutch, plus National of Pittsburgh which, with the province of Nova Scotia, are studying in depth all the technical, financial and marketing aspects in respect of the establishment of a new steel complex in eastern Nova Scotia on Cape Breton Island. They have been involved in this for a year and a half now since Cansteel was organized, and the decision concerning whether or not to go ahead should be made by May next year.
Despite the present uncertain conditions in respect of world steel markets and the large capital financing that would be necessary, there seems to be a strong possibility that the effort could be successful. Traditionally from the 19th century on steel plants were located near raw materials such as coal, iron ore, limestone or dalomite, and at sites inland. Later closeness to markets became strategically important. It seerris to me there is now a trend back to locating near available raw materials, especially coking coal and tidewater with depth.
The consortium partners would buy much of the semi-finished slabs and billets that would be produced, and hopefully we could produce some other finished products besides rails, given the fact that there would be a sort of captive market for a majority of the semi-finished steel. The government must seize the opportunity it has in this case and encourage such a development in every feasible way. It would appear now that there would be available from the Cape Breton Development Corporation three million tons of good coking coal at internationally competitive prices.
Iron ore, and generations of steel-making skill are available in the Cape Breton industrial area. There is access to deep tidewater and there is easy access to limestone and dalomite. To make it a success, however, the federal government must be deeply involved and committed. Given the return of the present member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. Mac-Eachen) to his duties as House Leader and deputy Prime Minister we know that co-operation from Ottawa will be guaranteed.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, as I sat and listened to this enlightening debate on customs tariffs I have been reminded of the election campaign of 1972 and of one particular all-candidate forum where my Liberal opponent read out a list of food prices from various places in Europe. He read the list as proof that the Liberal government of the day had solved the fight against inflation. He was followed by my NDP opponent who told the Liberal candidate not to bother the meeting with any list of agricultural prices in Europe because Canada is a great country with aggressive and progressive farmers and we did not need to hear any such list at all. It struck me that they had both missed the point.
I told my Liberal opponent that the list he read was the most important thing he had said all evening and that, rather than being overlooked, it should have been considered very

Customs Tariff
inadequate to allow us to build a viable manufacturing sector based on selling goods in the large market extending from Trois-Rivi&res in Quebec to Windsor in Ontario, within which region some two thirds of all Canadians live.
Simultaneously the American tariffs on many goods, as well as their more sophisticated manufacturing sector based upon economies of scale related to larger markets, their greater technology and access to finance, all hindered our development. An additional sore point with some people in Atlantic Canada is that many home grown family and partnership farms and businesses, both in primary and secondary manufacturing, were bought out by larger corporations which often proceeded to close them and supply the maritimes from their central Canadian factories or plants. In doing so they were unimpeded by any federal attempt to intervene, as for example, by a fiscal tool such as a high capital gains tax for selling maritime-owned businesses in order to keep these industries' jobs in the maritime provinces.
Having made that brief, if simplistic, historical incursion into our economic history, and while I do believe the world we are moving into in the 1980's and 1990's is going to be one which will demand greater liberalization of trade between countries, and while believing that Canada has to take a lead in promoting the lowering of tariffs, I must express a caveat.
The free trade model recently proposed by the Economic Council of Canada as a policy option for Canada during the latter half of the 1970's is, in my opinion, a dubious proposition. The modern extensions of Ricardo's model are predicated on an institutional framework that bears little resemblance to the existing international political economic order.
For success, the free trade model requires a laissez faire political and economic system, that is, passive government, truly competitive markets, small, powerless and passive trading firms, unimpeded flows of labour between countries and within national boundaries, free flows of capital and non-managed, flexible exchange rates-no dirty floats. Only when these institutional conditions are met will all the participants in international trade experience any improvements in their real standards of living.
Within the framework of our own confederation we have had free trade, indeed an economic union, between the provinces, but the Atlantic provinces have still suffered. Likewise if you look at the divisions between the rich and the poor sections in Italy, we can agree that free trade even within a country is sometimes injurious to one section of it, or at least plays little role in closing the employment and income gap between national regions. I also believe, and more so after listening to Prime Minister Manley of Jamaica today, that we in the better off countries have to open our markets in a preferential way to Third World countries.
Some would argue that we have a comparative advantage that should be exploited in high technology industries. Indeed a perusal of Canada's trade figures reveals that the country may not even possess a comparative, that is a relative, advan-

tage in high technology industries. Moreover, not only have the high technology manufacturing industries, with few exceptions, performed poorly in foreign markets, but they have also been slipping in the domestic market. Thus it would appear that the strength of Canada's trade advantage resides in the resource sector, a sector that would not likely experience large gains because of free trade. As a result the movement to free trade would, it seems to me, reinforce the Canadian image of hewers of wood and drawers of water.
Obviously in the short run per capita incomes have increased through development of our natural resources and staple products, but we have paid a high price for it. We must now intelligently and vigorously pursue a policy of increased processing of Canada's natural resources, but this move would be inconsistent with free trade in the textbook sense. Furthermore, the regional repercussions of the closing out of a substantial segment of the manufacturing sector-for example, textiles in Quebec-are even more serious than I have indicated.
A substantial decline in employment in the manufacturing sector, compensated by a sharp increase in the share of aggregate employment accounted for by the service sector, could result in a marked deterioration in the productivity potential of the economy. Indeed it is possible that the initial productivity bonus stemming from specialization could be completely offset within four to six years by a lower trend growth in over-all productivity.
Up to now we have assumed that the transition which would occur in the industrial structure as a result of the move toward free trade would be orderly, but the massive industrial restructuring that would be required to maximize the potential benefits from free trade could not in fact take place in an orderly manner, even if we were looking at a relatively long adjustment period. Canada's post-war economic history suggests that this is so for many of our industries that have been protected for a long period.
Moreover, some suggestions that Canada should even go it alone unilaterally in establishing free trade, strike me as being completely unrealistic and could be catastrophic in the consequences of such a step. Canada has to operate Within the context of negotiating under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. At the present time the various countries of the world are engaged in the tedious but important meetings of GATT that are referred to as the Tokyo round of negotiations. It is our belief and hope that a great deal will be accomplished in the liberalization of trade policies for Canada and, indeed, for the world at these meetings.
I would especially hope that the Third World countries would be given special concessions by the developed countries which have controlled the GATT system in the past because they carried out much of the world's trade between themselves. We in the developed world must continually remind ourselves that there are some two billion human beings on this planet, flesh and blood like ourselves, who have to be encouraged with aid both of food and fibre, and also technology and capital, but including trade arrangements that would give them a chance
October 28, 1976

sible for allowing to go through cabinet regulations which reduced the duty on certain fish products. The processed fish industry is having problems disposing of its product on the various markets, including our Canadian markets.
Some of the items on which we have had reductions are sugar, fresh and processed vegetables, fish products, prepared food products, biscuits, crackers and cereal foods, all of which have had a reduction in duty when coming into this country. These products should be manufactured by Canadians. More Canadians would be employed and there would be a better income for agriculture. The program is contradictory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McCain:: You either want employment in Canada or you do not, and I suspect the Minister of Finance is on a collision course in this and other fields. If agriculture is to be more and more vulnerable, there will be more and more unemployment.
I wonder how many members are acquainted with farm friends who have spent $100,000 on farm equipment recently, $50,000 for grain storage, or $75,000 for potato storage. This creates work in the industrial areas of Canada. However, if the farmer is to have increased competition from foreign sources, he is not going to require commercial storage. He will not be able to afford any tractors or combines built in central Canada or the northern United States. In fact he will not need them.
The Minister of Finance should look at the remarks placed on the record when the predecessor of this bill was introduced. The Minister of Agriculture should also look at the remarks made at that time. Statistics were placed on the record which indicate that both urban and rural Canada are economically worse off by virtue of the influx of cheap food. The employment picture can be improved if agriculture can improve its financial position.
It is high time the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), in co-operation with the Minister of Agriculture, examined the programs of the EEC, of the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and the United States. It is high time the President of the Treasury Board seriously considered the amounts of money which would be required to maintain the agricultural industry in a spirit of confidence comparable to that in the United States. These are figures which you cannot get, and to which no one has given consideration.
Not many months ago the Minister of Agriculture told us that our farmers had the benefit of the best programs in the world. That is not the case. Look at Agricultural Production in the United States and read "Agriculture Abroad", another publication of the Department of Agriculture in Canada. Read about the Swiss set-up. Read what is said about the American set-up. Read about the programs available for rice, sugar, cotton, peanuts, all of which are eligible for continued assistance and subsidy because the government feels it is desirable that these crops should be produced on an economic basis- and this does not mean the exclusion of imports.
Customs Tariff
We have seen apple exports from Nova Scotia excluded from the U.K. by virtue of a high-handed, unnegotiated structure in the form of EEC. We have seen market after market disappear because we have negotiated, not with the idea of sustaining a healthy agricultural industry but apparently with the idea of supporting scissor factories and similar enterprises.
In conclusion let me say there is a pertinent and dramatic parallel between the peaks of prosperity in the economy of Canada as a whole and the prosperity of Canadian agriculture. The curves do not coincide precisely, but in virtually every case the peaks of the Canadian economy as a whole come very near, in time, to the peaks of prosperity of Canadian agriculture. Any minister of finance who passes a bill which endangers the economy of agriculture endangers the total economy. He might say to himself that only 7 per cent of the people of Canada work in agriculture, but at the same time he had better look at the vast spending capability of the industry to the benefit of urban Canada, in the main.
This measure is a backward step, a detrimental step. It is bad for Canada as a whole and dangerous for agriculture not because of the size of the individual reductions but because it is a symptom of a policy which has remained in place for ten years and which has hurt agriculture in a serious way. Surely the minister can reconsider. Surely cabinet can sit down together and help this group of people which is so important to Canada in the long range, including of course the metropolitan consumer.


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, economists have vigorously argued the case for free trade for about 200 years, so when the Economic Council of Canada last year reaffirmed its support for free trade it was simply falling in step with a long tradition of economic thought.
As Professor Paul Samuelson has written in his best-selling economics text book:
Unhampered trade promotes a mutually profitable international division of labour, greatly enhances the potential real national product of all countries, and makes possible higher standards of living all over the globe.
The basis for such conclusions rests upon the principle of comparative advantage, first stated in 1817 by David Ricardo, an English stockbroker, economist and self-made millionaire. Considering the institutional environment of that day, and judged by Britain's priorities, Ricardo's theoretical and actual support for free trade seemed justified. Indeed Britain used the free trade doctrine to its advantage during the peak period of its colonial power in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
The maritime provinces have always been, in theory advocates of free trade for historical reasons. The economies of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick both flowered in the days of reciprocity with the U.S. prior to confederation.
There has always been a traditional grievance that central Canadian manufacturing industries were over-protected by the tariff, forcing maritimers and westerners to pay very high prices for the goods produced by those industries. As the same time national transportation policies were-and still are-

October 28, 1976
Customs Tariff
the farmer? Often the farmer is kicked in the teeth; should he not sometimes get a pat on the back?
Certain agricultural chemicals are not so listed because they were not used for agriculture 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago. Now such chemicals are needed in the agricultural industry. Because certain chemicals have only recently become available, farmers must deal with a great deal of red tape before they can bring them into this country. These items have been mentioned in letters sent to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture, and the minister concerned with the collection of duty. This has been going on for 15 months, Mr. Speaker. There was plenty of time to include such items in this legislation, and allow them to come in duty free, but they have not been included.
We restored the duty on scissors, reduced the duty on agricultural products, ignored the items of importation which are problems to the producer, and we expect the farmer to be happy and to improve our balance of trade. We are indeed in the midst of a strange psychology.
I submit, in view of the statistics which have been pointed out, that a great many inequitable trade situations should be resolved with the United States as far as agricultural trade is concerned. If you look at the duty on beef into the United States in its various forms, it is inequitable. The duty on the potato structure is inequitable. The duty on grapes and wines is inequitable.
Grapes and wines are a prime example of an agricultural commodity which has been detrimentally affected by a change in the policy of duty applied to imports of agricultural products. All those in southern Ontario who voted for Liberal members have got for their thanks a situation with regard to duty in which wine and wine concentrates can be imported into Canada at a price which makes it virtually impossible for the wine industry and the grape industry of Canada to thrive. How would you like to ship a few thousand tons to France? Give it a try some day.
Instead of putting on a reasonable duty through this piece of legislation to protect the grape grower, we are buying surplus grapes in southern Ontario at a cost of something over $1 million. I commend the government for recognizing their financial problem. We will probably do something about processing them and end up spending $330,000.
We will use public funds to subsidize grapes because we have a duty policy which allows concentrates and finished products to come into Canada in competition with our products. The government is dipping into the public purse to correct it. I agree it must dip under the present circumstances. However, I disagree with it permitting the circumstances to arise where it is necessary to dip into the public purse to correct an obvious oversight.
If you were to order wine in government premises anywhere in Ottawa where it might be available, would you get Canadian wine? I wonder whether the grape grower is getting that much support from the Government of Canada, the Minister

of Agriculture, and the Minister of Finance. If I am not mistaken there is a great deal that is foreign and you have to take it without asking.
A classic example of a situation in which there is often a surplus is the potato. The Government of Canada should take note of this example. You cannot get potatoes into the European Economic Community unless there is a drought or shortage to the point of causing great hardship. However, we happen to have a piece of paper which says that following their mid-August decision to suspend the customs external tariff on fresh and chilled cabbage, cauliflower, peas, carrots, celery and potatoes until the end of September, the EEC ministers agreed to prolong this suspension with respect to all these vegetables until the end of the year.
This is one of the very first times that Canada is shipping table stock potatoes into the European Economic Community. They have always had enough of their own and, at times, a surplus. They have not dumped that surplus of potatoes in Canada, but in markets that traditionally belonged to Canada and the United States. They dumped them at prices which scarcely covered the cost of packaging and freight. However, we have no such program.
The Scandinavian countries today say that they are going to ship as many potatoes as they can ship properly, but they are going to protect their consumers and producers by not letting out too many. The ministers of the European Economic Community are going to let some potatoes in, but not too many. They are going to protect their farmers.
Time after time the Australian government has passed regulation after regulation because a particular agricultural commodity was being hurt. We had an extensive market in Australia. However, because a particular Commodity was in competition with a product in Australia, the door was shut forthwith. For some reason or another Canada, as a party to GATT, cannot do the same to anybody else. We can be excluded from markets world-wide without any call for compensation whatsoever. However, when our market is cluttered with dumped produce, no action can be taken because it would contravene our relationship with GATT. It is high time we put ourselves in a different position with GATT.
There are close to a million tons surplus of potatoes on the North American continent, 400,000 pounds of which are in Canada. I hope that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Finance will co-operate in their search for markets and duty concessions so that the Minister of Agriculture and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) will not again have to dip into the public purse to bail out the potato farmer. If not, he may have to be bailed out in the same way as the grape farmer and the pork producer.
It is indeed a strange and wonderful structure in which we find ourselves today. It would be utterly impossible for any conscientious individual with any relationship to the farm community to allow this legislation to pass by without castigating the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) who is equally respon-
October 28, 1976

body was thoroughly and completely deceived, particularly the farmer.


An hon. Member:: But you people forced the election.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, no opposition party can force an election when the government wants to stay in power.


An hon. Member:: Where were you in 1974?


Fred Alward McCain: Please shut up and listen, and perhaps you will learn.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: The government introduced legislation in this House which it knew no party on my side could possibly support. It was done, with the malevolent intent to bring an election upon the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: You're sore because you lost.


Fred Alward McCain: The very principle involved in that legislation demanded that every opposition party should vote against the government, and no one knew this better than the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he authorized the introduction of the legislation.


An hon. Member:: And you blew the election.


Fred Alward McCain: Well-


An hon. Member:: You lost, and you will continue to lose.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, there are none so blind as those who will not learn or listen.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Right on.


Fred Alward McCain: Our agricultural industry can improve this country's unfavourable balance of trade. Let me relate some figures to demonstrate the trade deficit which Canada experienced in relation to the United States.
In the five-year period 1966 to 1970 inclusive Canada incurred, on average, a trade deficit in agriculture of $320 million with the United States. In 1971 that deficit rose to $371 million; in 1972 to $449 million; and in 1973 to $672 million. Do not forget that around this time the oil deficit made itself felt, as well. In 1974 the agricultural deficit rose to $1,048 million. In 1975 that agricultural trade deficit with the United States had risen to $1,095 million. And, Mr. Speaker, here we are, setting in motion today the very mechanism which will make that balance of trade even less favourable.
I grant you that so long as our grain is in such great demand on international markets, we shall continue to have an over-all favourable balance of agricultural trade. But if we continue on our present course we shall erode that favourable position because we shall see imported the agricultural commodities which ought to be produced here in this country. And our position is being eroded. The government's policies are causing that erosion.
Customs Tariff
Earlier today the hon. member from British Columbia discussed the flower growing industry. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian flower growing industry was doing well in Canadian and United States markets. Then came the change in the energy climate. The Canadian government's energy policy drove up the cost of heating greenhouses and other installations used for raising flowers. Consequently, the industry was placed in a difficult economic position. Now, since energy is cheaper in the United States than in Canada, the raising of flowers and shrubs in Canada has declined.
Similar factors have affected costs within our agricultural industry. Let me give you some figures, Mr. Speaker. I am about to refer to a little booklet put out by Agriculture Canada entitled "Canada's Trade in Selected Farm Inputs, 1945-75." Let us see what has happened to the costs of imported items used in agriculture.
The cost in imported agricultural chemicals rose by about 80 per cent in the period 1971-75. The import costs of fertilizer materials increased by 340 per cent. Baler twine had risen by as much as 450 per cent by 1975. Although the cost of that item is down somewhat, costs have still risen by about 300 per cent during the relevant period. Imported tractor and implement tires rose by 160 per cent; combines for grain, by 90 per cent; farm loaders, by 105 per cent; tractors, by 100 per cent; used tractors, by 300 per cent; tractor cabs, by 225 per cent-and so it goes.
How can the government approve legislation of the kind we are now debating which cuts the ground from under the agricultural industry which contributes so much to this country? Further, this bill does not correct inequities which were imposed against the intent of legislation applying basically to agricultural imports. Rulings and regulations have been handed down which go contrary to that intent. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) this afternoon cited examples. One could cite others, equally valid.
Materials handling equipment necessary on the farm is not eligible for import duty free, as originally intended. The reason is that such equipment resembles implements used for other purposes. Therefore, it is dutiable. And, once duty has been paid, it is almost impossible to obtain a return of duty, even though the equipment was supposed to be allowed in duty free. If you want to buy ventilation equipment for vegetable storage today, you will be asked to pay duty on it. duty has been remitted in some instances, and in some circumstances such equipment is allowed in duty free on the basis of a former remission. But why not correct that situation? If you are going to reduce duty on farm equipment and so allow our farmers to be more productive, why not correct the situation with legislation, instead of leaving it in limbo, so to speak. You are only inviting some person to impose some fresh ruling in future.
At present no manufacturer in Canada makes ventilation equipment for farm buildings. The Government of Canada says that if you bring in ventilation and temperature control equipment for grain, it is duty free; but if you bring it in for any other reason, it is dutiable and taxable. I submit that this policy is in error. Why not do something to the advantage of

October 28, 1976
Customs Tariff
imposed upon those who produce at less than the cost of production.
The pork industry is an example, Mr. Speaker, and it is singled out for particularly harsh treatment. Since 1972, when many of us arrived in this House for the first time, it experienced a cycle of major losses and the provinces had to come to the rescue. There was then a rather short cycle of profit, but it did not recover its capital losses and has not repaid the loans which were necessary in the low cycle. As a result of an over abundance of meat of all kinds on the Canadian market, it is now in a very depressed condition and is not protected by any automatic plan to contribute to the welfare of the producers, as would be the case in other parts of the world. It must suffer cycles of no duty, plus cycles of low prices. This is just shortsighted economics not just from the point of view of agriculture and the pork producer but for Canada as a whole.
I think it is interesting to note that according to the document we are studying, duties will be dropped or will continue to be reduced on between 30 and 40 agricultural items. Let us examine what happened between 1972 and 1975 on these items. I do not include oranges, orange juice, and the kinds of fruit that we must import but only those we produce ourselves. The government claims not much harm has been done since the initial reduction, but if it would relate the statistics to the imports of such products from 1972 to 1975 it would realize that except for three agricultural items produced here, only cranberries, green beans, and carrots have had a favourable change in their trade position. All the other items, apples, blueberries, cherries, peaches, pears, plums, strawberries, beans, cabbage, potatoes, etc. were imported in greater quantities in 1975. There is absolutely no indication that this trend has changed or will change in the figures for 1976.
There have been many complaints about unemployment in this country. If we are going to adopt tariff policies which will result in increased imports of food-and the trend is very clearly established-then we are putting ourselves in the position of eliminating jobs rather than creating them. We are just adding to our own hardship.
Perhaps one item that should be given some careful consideration is sugar. Not that Canada produces much sugar but it has been the subject of gossip by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). We have to call it gossip, Mr. Speaker, because nothing concrete has ever come of it. On several occasions the minister has said that we should have a sugar industry somewhere in his own area. In spite of that, however, this particular item of business with which we are dealing proposes to reduce the duties on sugar to the point where it would be impossible for Canadians to produce it. During the recent world shortage of sugar I submit that Canadian consumers paid more for it, and sacrificed their desire for it to a degree that would have been unnecessary if there had been a sugar policy to support the industry at its historical levels. I submit also that in the long run the consumer would have paid less for sugar in Canada, as was the case in the United States where they had a sugar policy.


Mr. O'Connell:: Statistics prove the opposite.


Fred Alward McCain: Let us have the statistics then, and see if they prove anything of the kind.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Sure they do.


Fred Alward McCain: I know what the price of sugar was in Canada during that shortage and what it was in the United States; it went much higher in the United States than it ever did in Canada.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: You are suggesting the long term.


Fred Alward McCain: I am suggesting the long term, that is right, and I submit that in the short term they paid enough to cover ten years if we had a sugar policy here.
As world demand for food increases and as world demand for sugar increases, Canadians may be very sorry that we do not have a sugar policy. We have not experienced the only high price in sugar that we are going to experience. For the sake of the consumer we need a sugar policy, and for the sake of the farmer we need a sugar policy.
In response to a question in this House the Minister of Agriculture stated that he was consulted about the reduction of duties on agricultural products but that it was so small it did not make any difference. That is a shocking statement to the world of agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Let us examine two or three agricultural items besides sugar where lack of a policy has been detrimental to the national industry.
Let us take the apple industry. In Europe there is an automatic program which guarantees a farmer a specific return for his product to cover a fair wage for himself and his help. We have no such automatic program, so when surplus apple juice appeared in Switzerland about 18 months ago it landed in Canada unprotected against dumping, unprotected against an unfair market price, and of course our apple industry suffered greatly. Do we want to become dependent upon Europe for our apple juice? In the long run it will be expensive. I submit that riding down inflation on the backs of the farmers is about as short term as any policy the government could conceive. You cannot financially ruin the pork and beef industry and the apple and apple juice industries, and expect fair prices tomorrow on the consumer shelves. You can quote all sorts of statistics to justify yourselves, but God help us when the consumer must reap the harvest, must bear the brunt of what you have done. You will need half a dozen Plumptres to justify your existence.
The government has played both ends against the middle most deceitfully. On the one hand Mrs. Plumptre told the consumer what a great country he lived in and how low prices would be under the Trudeau administration. On the other hand, the Minister of Agriculture tried to convince farmers that, if they voted for the government, they would be in Utopia. The government called an election in 1974, and every-
October 28, 1976

his beliefs and for the manner in which he pursues them with persistence for the good of the country.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: It is unconstitutional.


Mr. Andres:: Much criticism has been levelled at the position of the members in the other place, and the very usefulness of the other place has been brought to attention. The hon. member has made some valid points.


Donald W. Munro: Name one.


William Andres: He made some valid points in defence of his proposal to abolish the other place. We could well look after things in this House, as he said. I concur in many of these valid points. Nevertheless I believe the hon. member has missed a very important aspect of our society, namely, our freedom. I should like to bring one saying to his attention, namely, that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. This is something that we should all keep in mind and understand. Members of the other place stand there vigilant when we in haste, and sometimes with some political expediency, move in a rational or an irrational manner. It is the members in the other place who bring us back to our senses. I appreciate the other place and the reason for which these people were appointed.
Much has been said about democracy and about the fact that the abolition of the other place would be undemocratic. But words must be followed by action, and I believe very firmly in the democratic process. At the same time I recognize fully that democracy is a cumbersome form of government. However, it is a government that represents the people. In my view the abolition of the other place would be another step toward the loss of this protection of our freedom. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre were successful with his proposal, I would not be a bit surprised if before long he or his kind were to introduce another bill, but this time a bill to abolish this place-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Not Stanley, he would not do that.


William Andres: However, I do not think the hon. member will be successful as he has not been in 30 odd years. Even though he thinks he has made some progress on this issue, I submit he has not because in fact the other place has been strengthened in the few short years that I have been here, during which time I have come to appreciate and respect what the other place stands for and to appreciate the diligence of the members of the other place in their committee work. I feel it is an honour to have an Upper House which is our bulwark for freedom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Andres: Much has been said in our various provinces and other countries about the abolition of an upper house, but let us not forget that in some other countries elected representatives have been abolished and totalitarian governments
Customs Tariff
reign. I hope we will never see that day in this great country of ours where we enjoy freedom. I hope we will never have that type of dictatorship or totalitarian regime.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock and the hour for private members, business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-15, to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, the reason given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) for his failure to renew certain of the reduced duties was that this was designed to create employment. That is a very logical and proper reason, but let us consider one of the industries which will be badly hurt by the lack of protection from duty, namely, the meat packing industry.
The meat packing industry has annual sales of over $3.5 billion. It is third largest of all manufacturing industries. It ranks second in the cost of material used, amounting to almost $3 billion. The materials are produced locally, Mr. Speaker. It spends $6 million every day on livestock and employs a total work force of nearly 33,000. Salaries and wages amount to $337 million annually; it contributes $20 million annually in taxes, and spends $20 million for fuel and electricity. I think these credentials establish that if any industry should be protected for reasons of employment and contributions to the economy, it should be the meat packing industry.
If we do not protect the producers of the raw material in that industry, employment is affected, and I submit that the items which have been reconsidered because of their employment capability rank well below the meat packing industry. This does not say anything about the hardship that will be

October 28, 1976
BN A Act
[ Translation]


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to kill the legislation introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Besides, that would be a lack of courtesy on my part if I wanted to kill his bill, and I want to congratulate him for his stubbornness. Every year since I have been in the House of Commons, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has introduced this bill aimed at doing away with that famous old institution-the Senate.
Today, I believe he is just asking for his bill to be referred to the committee for a more thorough study. This is my opinion is very reasonable, for hon. members who have opinions about the Senate could make them known before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, when we question the people, we get surprising answers. A while ago, I heard someone who probably wants to become a senator try to prove the usefulness of the Senate. I assure you that 98 per cent of the people consider the Senate an absolutely useless institution. I am surprised that the Senate still exists in the federal government because all the provinces have decided that it is a useless institution. The proof of this is that one by one they have all eliminated their second chamber. As someone said earlier, the last province to do so was Quebec. And what fights and discussions there were before this old monument could be eliminated in Quebec! All other Canadian provinces had already done away with their legislative council. People said about Quebecers: Quebec is the most royalist of all the provinces of Canada since it is so attached to its legislative council.
Another reason for my surprise is the fact that the federal government has always more or less shown the way to provinces and that I now realize that it has been given a lesson by all the provinces and that it has not learned from it. Today we are wondering simply what is the usefulness of the Senate. Indeed, all citizens wonder about this. In my opinion, to be fair to the population, we should simply hold a referendum throughout Canada to ask the opinion of the people. Indeed, are we not supposed to reflect the opinion of the people? The government would like to anticipate all the wishes of the big financiers. On the social level, it seems to me that we should be more interested in the opinion of the people.
If by chance this bill were sent to the committee and if a referendum concerning the Senate were suggested, the population could decide if it needs it and if it wishes to keep this old monument. In that case, it would be renovated and kept as other old monuments. But I am convinced, as hon. members all are, that if there were a referendum, 80 per cent of the population would vote to abolish the Senate. This is why I rose in support of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In fact, what does being a senator mean? We say it is an honorary title. It is not even an honorary title, Mr. Speaker, it is a dishonorary title because half of the defeated members are appointed there to hide their shame. And it is called an honorary title. Nevertheless, in my opinion an honorary title should be granted to a great scientist.

If a great man stands out in society, such a title would give him the opportunity to perform his scientific work or any other important task for 10 or 12 more years. This is not what we do. Right after his defeat, a member is appointed to the Senate.
That is called an honorary title. What is the population expected to think of such a gesture? If only the members of the Senate were elected, they would at least have a few responsibilities. The House of Commons has all the responsibilities as things are, because its members alone are elected and they are accountable to the people. Because the senator is not elected, he has no responsibility; yet he enjoys all the privileges of those who are elected and who have responsibilities; worse still, he has a right of veto on all the House of Commons does.
Mr. Speaker, the right of veto the Senate has today it did not get from the people. I say those who are truly responsible are those the members of parliament who are elected by the people, who are sent here to work for the people. Moreover, they should not shift their responsibilities on civil servants. Today, there is another type of senator, the civil-servant-senator who does the work of the MPs, who takes over their responsibilities though he is not elected at all.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people has had enough of these irresponsible groups, of the groups they cannot meet, and who do not care about their opinions. Some people say that senators represent an area, but it is not true. The only thing a senator represents, is his seat in the other place, that's all.
He is like a civil servant. What does he represent? His office, this is all he represents; he has no other responsibility. Those who have the responsibility are those who have been elected by the people. When there are blows, they get them while civil servants laugh at us because they have been given absolute control.
It is about the same with the Senate. They have a right of veto over all our work while the people gave them no authority. We could have an elected Senate, which would be responsible and smaller, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), a Senate with 25 or 30 senators. This would be enough; fewer senators would sleep in the Senate, that's all. If we want to keep this monument, let us make it smaller, but at least let us have elected senators and let us have them take responsible actions before the people of Canada. This is ultimately why I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that this bill should be referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that at least hon. members can go before the committee and speak about this matter.


Mr.   Wm. Andres@Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to enter the debate this afternoon. I do not wish to be unduly long, and in fact I shall try to be brief. However, first I should like to commend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for his perseverance in putting forward
October 28, 1976

That was even before the hon. member's time and a good deal before mine. They came up with a lot of things that they were going to do for Canada, and very prominent in their list of promises was reform of the Senate.
The Liberal party has now gone so far that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has shown the greatest generosity in saying that if a Progressive Conservative senator would retire, "I will be glad to consider putting a Progressive Conservative in his place." We have such a large contingent over there that I thought that was a very generous gesture! The Prime Minister said in the throne speech in the last session, as reported at page 44 of Hansard for October 2, 1974:
Hon. members opposite talk about partisan appointments. This is a serious matter which I have already had the opportunity to discuss several years ago with the authorities of opposition parties, and I had then suggested and I repeat my suggestion today, that if indeed the senators of the Progressive Conservative party, of the Tory party, who wish to retire from the Upper Chamber, refrain from doing so because they do not want to be replaced by Liberal senators, I repeat what I told several years ago to Senator Flynn who, if I am not mistaken, represents the opposition party in the Senate, that, for my part, 1 would readily appoint Progressive Conservatives to replace the Progressive Conservatives who voluntarily retire from the Upper Chamber.
I interpolate that in the case of those who die, of course, there will not be that treatment. Apparently Prince Edward Island is excluded because when a Progressive Conservative senator did retire voluntarily he was succeeded by a member of the Liberal cabinet of Prince Edward Island. I have no special feeling about that.
I think one way to reform the Senate is to make it a more useful body. I noticed that when His Excellency the Deputy Governor General was reading the prorogation speech it pointed out how often this Chamber met and how less frequent were the sessions of the Senate. I think more legislation could be introduced and processed there. I think the present government is often quite contemptuous of the Senate in tossing legislation over to them, giving the senators two or three hours to deal with matters of great national emergency. I think that is very bad.
I want to reiterate what has been said many times, Mr. Speaker. The Senate in its committees has done, in my opinion, excellent work. Today I was looking over the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee study on relations between Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean. I had that in mind because a very distinguished Jamaican is visiting Ottawa and I will have the honour of chatting with him tomorrow. That is an excellent and careful study which reflects balanced, wise, and helpful judgment. It is highly regarded by leaders in the whole of the Commonwealth Caribbean and has given us great prestige in that someone has given thought to an important matter. I think what that committee has done in many areas of foreign affairs has been very useful.
The hon. member who preceded me spoke about numerous other studies which have been very helpful. I think the Senate should take advantage of its more informal procedures to deal with more issues. I have often thought it would be an excellent thing for the hon. member who moved this bill to accept an appointment to the Senate. They are more casual about proce-
BNA Act
dure there and he would be of great help to them on many matters.
Mfr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Macquarrie:: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Isn't he my friend? Why does he suggest that?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I think it is also because I am a friend of the Senate. He could join an ex-colleague. I used to hear a former member for Assiniboia wanting to abolish the Senate two or three times a session. He now sits over there as Senator Hazen Argue. The hon. member would also have other friends. Senator Eugene Forsey not only became a senator but a Liberal. He was not always so. There would be lots of opportunities for him.
Perhaps one of the flaws in our system is that we are occasionally a little casual about improving our rules of procedure. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) has stated, we all know very well that while, strictly speaking, and in terms of the constitution, this second body has an absolute veto, it keeps its position in our structure by not using it, or as Senator Forsey has said, by not acting like madmen or fools. I think it would be wise to reform the Senate by removing that veto or making it applicable for a limited time. To have an absolute veto that they do not use for political reasons strikes me as not being a very good structure. I think some improvement in that regard could be made.
I think the hon. member's bill will not get support. While there are many things we could do to improve the life of the Canadian people, I doubt whether the destruction of the Senate tomorrow would really benefit many Canadians. It would do very little for the people who were disbanded, even if they were pensioned off, as has been suggested.
To write off the long-established Senate of Canada and say it is useless and makes no contribution is, I think, with all due respect, a bit myopic. I know it is a good subject for humour. I remember discussing the dear old chap who was there until he was 104 years of age and who was accused of never having made a speech in his life. That was contradicted. He said he made two speeches, one the day he came there when he denied that his appointment was a result of political corruption, and one on the day when he was congratulated on his 100th birthday. But he always obeyed the bell. It is such a gentle bell over there. It is so different from ours that it almost makes one have longings.
The hon. member has given us an opportunity to debate an old chestnut. I admire his tenacity and respect his views, but I hope his drastic, destructive action will not be supported by this Chamber.

October 28, 1976
BN A Act


Mr. Anderson:: That number, 104, relates to the number of seats allotted to the various provinces as they entered confederation. As a member from western Canada, I feel somewhat relieved that there are 24 senators from western Canada in that chamber. If we ever did get into a bind, they would be there. I hope we shall never get into a situation where they are needed, but I cannot prophesy what will come about in the future. Even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, with his great wisdom, cannot prophesy the future except, possibly, that he will be here for another 34 years, which might be not so much a prophesy as a statement of fact.
Although I disagree with the hon. member's bill, I hope that some time in the future discussion can be held as to the role of the Senate, so that not only members of this House but the people across Canada will have an opportunity to consider the operations of that body. As things are, very few Canadians really understand its purpose and function.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre probably expresses the views of the majority of Canadians when he states that the Senate should be abolished, not because those who hold such views are basing them on any personal knowledge of the subject; their attitude arises, I suppose, from the failure of the Senate to do a very good job of justifying its existence. Nor have we acknowledged sufficiently the importance of the investigations which the Senate has carried on to help this House in innumerable ways. Senators have been able to do a great deal of work with which we would otherwise be saddled.
These things should be made known to the people of Canada so that they would have some basis upon which to determine the value of the Senate and its place in the constitution. Is it to be regarded as a body of men who merely sit over there in their latter years, waiting for the grim reaper in very comfortable conditions, or is their expertise and experience being used for the benefit of the people of Canada? I have already referred to the aid they give to the House of Commons. Might the abolition of the Senate only create an extended form of bureaucracy brought about by the need to find others to carry on research or committee work?
There might be ways in which the operation of the Senate could be improved. However, let us not, in the words of the old saying, throw the baby out with the bath water. Let us make the Senate a productive body and then give the message to the rest of Canada.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I have memories of participating in debates on similar motions in recent years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member took part in one in 1867, didn't he?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I once told the hon. member who moved this bill that if I were 74'/2 years old I might give careful consideration to supporting the measure, but for the next 17

years I think I will tend to oppose such a very drastic move as he is suggesting.
My hon. friend was doing a little back patting when he said how well he had done over 34 years and how many Senators had gone to their reward. But he should be a little more humble. Not only is the other place still there but it has grown before his very eyes. He has been hammering away at it and it has gone from 96 to 104, so I do not think he can claim to be all that effective, sir.
I think it is a bit drastic to look at an institution and, because we find it imperfect, to say that we must throw it out. That is the kind of pessimism that says we are incapable of improving an institution. Many years ago Walter Bagelot said that if the House of Commons were an ideal place then you would not need the other chamber. As much as I love this institution, I doubt I would go so far as to say it is ideal.
On the other hand I would also doubt that there is not some need for this second look, that sober second thought. The preceding speaker's remarks had certain little subtle implications concerning the founder of our country when he used the word "sober". I can only recall what Sir John A. Macdonald himself said-"that the people of Canada prefer John A. drunk to George Brown sober." He seemed to have been right for a good many years.


Mr. McRae:: Neither of them went to the Senate.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: No, they did not. The question of a second Chamber is a serious one. The American founding fathers spent a great deal of time on this matter. Thomas Jefferson used a rather homely metaphor when he was asked, "Why do you need this second Chamber?" He used to pour his tea into a saucer, as was the custom in those days. He saucered the tea into his mouth and said, "It's a little cooler that way".
I was much impressed when I got the chance to visit the great city of Brasilia, with all its interesting and magnificent buildings, and I discovered that their bicameral legislature meets in a building that looks very much like a cup and saucer. It is a very futuristic city; I am not an architect, but that is what it looked like.
I was talking the other day to a very prominent member of the NDP who told me that he had been over to London to visit the Westminster Houses of Parliament. He went into the gallery of the House of Lords and heard there the finest debates he had ever heard dealing in a fundamental, philosophic, yet very practical way with the great problems that the British were facing. Hon. members have no doubt read excerpts from the House of Lords debates which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail last week. Those are the debates my NDP friend heard.
I believe we should not forget the capacity for infinite improvement. We should have hope enough to think that we can reform. Reform has been in the air for a long time. In 1893 the first political convention in Canada was held in Ottawa. It was not a leadership convention but all of the Liberals who could get to Ottawa came to a great big meeting.
October 28, 1976


Stanley Howard Knowles: Give me another 34 years and see what happens.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I hope the hon. member is here for another 34 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hugh Alan Anderson: The hon. member lends a distinction to this House which would be sorely missed if he were no longer here. The only facetious comment I will make is that I assume the hon. member at the time of confederation spoke even more strongly against the creation of the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 was not around at that time.


An hon. Member:: Come on, Stanley.


Hugh Alan Anderson: The hon. member has raised a very interesting point, one that many Canadians perhaps consider to be a fault in the way the Senate has been set up, in that it is not an elected House as is the House of Commons. That is the way the Senate was set up originally. We have a great deal of debate in this House by its elected members. If the Senate were an elected House, surely they could speak with power similar to that of the elected representatives in this House. Although it is undemocratic to appoint someone to the Senate in the manner the hon. member spoke of, it would cause a gigantic kerfuffle between the two Houses if both were elected and both had the power of elected members.
Senator Eugene Forsey, commenting on the role of the Senate, said that unless the Senate takes leave of its senses and throws out a bill which a large majority of the people ardently desire, the question of abolition of the Senate will remain purely academic. The Senate knows it does not have enough political clout to do anything of the sort. In other words, the Senate may be undemocratic in the sense that it is not elected, but by the same token it realizes it is part of the process. It knows it does not have enough political clout to override the views and wishes of the House.
On the question of more power for the Senate, Senator Forsey covered this very well when he said that if you gave it more power there would be more power to make a nuisance of it, which is not what it should be. Making it an elected body would certainly do this. He said an elected Senate would claim to be just as representative of public opinion as the elected Commons, and would proceed to throw its weight around.
Many people in Canada do not understand the Senate. They regard it as a rest home for retired politicians-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And for defeated politicians.


Hugh Alan Anderson: -a rest home for people who deserve well from the community by reason of their outstanding services. But let us go back in history. As the hon. member said, Sir
BN A Act
John A. Macdonald, when the functions of the Senate were under discussion, said it was a chamber for sober second thought. I have always thought this was an amusing phrase, coming from Sir John A. Macdonald, and I wish I were sure whether he was being facetious or not. The Senate does perform a function in overseeing legislation. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would admit that very useful amendments have been brought forward by the Senate with respect to legislation which had passed through the Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very few.


Hugh Alan Anderson: But this is not the only important function of the Senate. A number of very useful reports have been made by that body or its committees. I think in particular of the study on poverty in Canada carried out under the chairmanship of Senator Croll. I believe the hon. member would agree that a great many members of the Senate have distinguished themselves in business and private life. Many of them have acquired great experience in municipal affairs, as provincial politicians and as politicians at the federal level. This knowledge and experience shows itself in reports such as the one to which I have referred.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre glossed over the fact that the Senate was brought into being for a specific purpose. The maritime provinces and Quebec felt there had to be a chamber where representation was not based simply upon numbers of population. It was evident even in those days that the population of the Maritimes was not likely to be substantial compared with, say, that of Ontario. In the early days of confederation it was feared in Quebec that the population might be greatly exceeded by that of Ontario, and that the strength of the representation in the Commons would be greatly diminished if the population of Ontario rose disproportionately. For this reason a proposal was adopted which ensured the presence of a guaranteed number of senators from Quebec, supposedly to look after the interests of that province.
Mr. Speaker, the Maritimes' population certainly has not increased proportionately with the rest of Canada. The hon. member tells us there is no longer much concern about the need for regional representation based on population. I am not so sure. I do not know anyone who can guarantee that the situation which the builders of our institution had in mind so long ago could not arrive, at a point in our history, where strong regional interest was involved, perhaps in the Prairies, perhaps in the Maritimes. When Quebec, the Maritimes and Ontario entered confederation they were allotted 24 representatives. The basis upon which these, seats were allocated remains unchanged to this day.
The hon. member says that 104 people seated in the Senate is too many; that their maintenance is too heavy a burden for the taxpayers of Canada to pay. But as I understand him, he is not directing his criticism to numbers. What he is saying is, abolish the Senate whether it is 104, 50, 25 or 5.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!

October 28, 1976
BN A Act
True, it was prepared before he had any notion that he might be summoned to that other place. In that memorandum he said that the Senate of Canada is the most undemocratic institution in the world. He went on to point out that it has unlimited veto power; it can say "no" to a decision of the House of Commons not just once or 100 times, but a thousand times. He said it in typical Forsey language, and I think he was right. The Senate as we have it in this country is as undemocratic as it can possibly be. Senator Forsey did not mean, and I do not mean, that the persons now in the Senate are undemocratic in their approach to things. What we are talking about is the structure, the constitutional provision which allows the will of the elected people to be overridden by those in the other place.
Sometimes persons who discuss this question with me say, "But you fellows in the House of Commons make mistakes now and then; it is good to have somebody else giving those matters sober second thought." It is a plausible argument; but by what right do those individuals in the other place have the authority to reject what we do? I point out that some in the other place have tried to get in here, into this House. Perhaps they ran for re-election and were defeated. In other words, the public said they did not want those persons in the Parliament of Canada, but they got in through the back door.
I suggest, also, that there are many more conflicts of interest in the other place than have been identified in this place. I think it is particularly unfortunate that matters involving banks, financial institutions and company incorporations are dealt with in that body which has the same authority as we have but which includes many persons with an interest in a number of those institutions.
It is sometimes argued that there are good persons over there, men and women who do good work on committees. They do. Some of their committee reports have been quite useful. They have gone into their subjects very thoroughly. However, I do not see why we should maintain 104 persons on the full pay that goes with being a senator and all the pension benefits that are down the road so that 15 or 20 can do good committee work. There are many professors, academics, businessmen, trade unionists and other people around the country who can be seconded for the kind of committee work that needs to be done. As I say, maintaining 104 for the work that 25 or 30 of them will do is surely not common sense.
I do not see the argument for reform that persons sometimes put forward. In fact, it often happens in the debate that takes place on this bill of mine. Some members will say that this member goes too far, that there are things wrong with the Senate, but let us reform it. Once in a while they start a debate on Senate reform in the other place, but they never finish it. The only reform that seems to have any logic is to provide for the senators to be elected in some way. If we were to do that, if we were to give them the moral authority of being responsible to the electorate, we would add to the stresses and strains of government in this country to no end. We have enough dif-

ficulty now in the conflict between the executive and parliament and between the parliament of Canada and the various legislatures without adding another conflict of two Houses with equal authority in terms of their being elected. I think the best answer is to look at the possibility of a unicameral parliament, namely, one House which can be responsible to the people of this country and do this nation's business.
At one time in our history several of our provinces had an upper chamber, but they were done away with one by one. The last one was that in the province of Quebec. How did they get rid of them? In some cases they pensioned off those who were there. That might seem to cost something at the moment, but the cost would be quite minimal compared with what it costs to maintain the Senate in perpetuity. Another argument that is sometimes used is that we have always had it, and therefore we should keep it. That argument keeps us doing a lot of things. I have had members around here ask me about certain reforms that ought to be made in this place. I sometimes have to say I have been through that half a dozen times over the last few decades. It just seems to have been around here for some time and that is why we keep it. That is no argument for the Senate.
It has been argued that the Senate is a place of sober second thought. The people who do the sober second thinking about what goes on here are the people of Canada, not some individuals who, as I have already said, are responsible to no one. There are those who still trot out the argument that in some way the Senate protects minorities. Sir, it does not protect anything. Certainly it does not protect minorities. Minorities are protected in this House where we are responsible to the various groups in the country. The other place where minority rights are protected is the courts.
All told, the case is a good one for revising what the Fathers of Confederation came up with 109 or 110 years ago, and doing away with the other place. My bill proposes this. It is very precise as to the changes that should be made to the constitution. It even has in it a precise date when it should come into effect, namely, July 1, 1977. In other words, Their Honours can have another seven or eight months. I know that the possibility of that happening is not great. However, I do think it is a serious question which we ought to be discussing in these days when we are concerned about the structure and nature of the Parliament of Canada.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this bill which proposes the abolition of the Senate will at least receive the approval of this House this afternoon, so that it can be sent for study to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for his tenacity in bringing forth this bill over a period of 34 years. It certainly indicates one thing: although they keep replacing the senators who came in during the hon. member's first years in the House, he may be winning one battle in that they are no longer here. However, the hon. member no doubt sees they are being replaced by other people. Although the hon. member's tenacity is there, he is not gaining too much headway.
October 28, 1976

order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order No. 1, in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). Shall the order stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: that Bill C-202, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if members of the House were prepared to proceed immediately to a vote on this matter I would, of course, withhold my speech, but it has been indicated to me that there are one or two who have views other than mine.
Sir, the purpose of this bill is quite clear. It would, among other things, change section 17 of our constitution, the British North America Act, to make it read:
There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen and the House of Commons.
In other words, the clear purpose of this bill is to abolish the Senate. I am sure this bill does not come as a surprise to hon. members. I have not counted the number of times I have introduced it. Before I drafted the actual bill I used to bring in motions and resolutions of one kind and another; therefore, 1 suppose it can be said that since the time I came here I have been arguing for the abolition of the other place.
Someone said to me a while ago that I was not being very effective, that I had been arguing for the abolition of the Senate for 34 years and it is still there. I replied that perhaps I had almost succeeded. Out of all the members who were over there when I first came here and called for the abolition of the Senate, only three remain. So in one way or another we have got rid of most of them. The job is almost done. True, there are quite a number of vacancies in the other place. Perhaps they could just be left. Those vacancies could act as a sort of carrot to induce certain persons to behave, but perhaps we could get rid of the other place in that way.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I hope that some day-and I do not see why this should not be the day-the House will at least let this bill go to the appropriate standing committee for discussion of this matter. Not all members of the House agree that
BN A Act
the Senate ought to be abolished. But surely in these days when questions are being asked about parliament, democracy and democratic institutions, it is a reasonable proposition that we, in the elected House of this parliament, should look at the provision of 1867 for another place and decide if that place should continue. It is my strong view that it should not.
When I ask that the bill be sent to the appropriate committee, I admit that there are arguments both ways. In fact, there are so many arguments and there is so much to say that we can hardly make a decision in the space of one private members' hour. That is why I plead seriously with the House. I submit that instead of talking this proposition out, the House should allow it to go, either as a bill or as the subject matter thereof, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for study by members of that committee.
Although I said there are arguments on both sides, and I do recognize that, so far as I am concerned all the arguments are on one side. I believe in democracy. I believe in this country being governed by the people and I think we have devised the right way for being governed by the people, namely, government by elected representatives who pass the laws and discuss the issues which concern a land such as ours.
Perhaps 109 or 110 years ago it seemed appropriate, in a day when the House of Lords was an important institution in the United Kingdom, that we in this country should also have a second body to look at what is done by elected representatives in this chamber. Surely Canada has grown up. Surely democracy has grown to the point where there is no case for the proposition that a group of men and women responsible to no one should have veto power over what is decided by those who have been elected by the people of this country. I emphasize that once a person is appointed to the Senate he is responsible to no one, not even to the prime minister who named him. He is there until age 75. Some of the members in the other place were appointed when the time limit was life itself. They are living out their appointments.
The concept of a democracy which does not go all the way does not, in my view, fit into our thinking today. If we believe that the people have been right to enjoy responsible government, the only persons who should have a say in the making of our laws should be those who are responsible back to the electorate, the people of Canada. I am not suggesting that all the things the Senate does are wrong and all the things this House does are right. I am not suggesting that mistakes are not made in this place. But, sir, every three, four or five years we have to go back to the electorate, back to the people of Canada for their verdict as to whether we should carry on. At the same time, we have this archaic set-up in which a group of 104 men and women-assuming all the places are filled-have the unquestioned right to veto and defeat any decisions made in the House of Commons, and they do not have to answer to anyone. To me that set-up is as undemocratic as it can be.
I am not the only one who makes extreme statements of that kind. I have in my possession, although I do not have it with me at the moment, a memorandum on the Senate which was prepared a number of years ago by Senator Eugene Forsey.

Customs Tariff
will be able to bring home to the cabinet the importance of many of our western products. I am counting on her to do that.
I have endeavoured to examine the various schedules in Bill C-15 to find out exactly what is being changed, from what it is being changed and to what it is being changed. I challenge any hon. member within half an hour to 45 minutes to decide what is being done. In some cases I suggest that nothing is being done. On page 6 of the bill we see references to cabbage, onions, green peas, rhubarb and green onions, all of which are fresh vegetables grown in my riding and in the lower mainland of British Columbia by small farmers and market gardeners who want to stay in business. I find that the duties set out are little, if anything, different from the duties set out in the book by Michael P. McGoldrick, entitled "Handbook of the Canadian Customs Tariff and Excise Duties." I made an attempt to go through that and compare it with schedule I of this bill, but it was quite a challenge. I should have liked another couple of days to go over it item by item to see if changes were being made and, if so, in what direction. If I found anything, I found it is not being done in the direction of protecting Canadian industries.
This government prides itself on having taken measures to encourage Canadian industry to develop-the Canada Development Corporation and the Foreign Investment Review Act. That is fine. But with Canada's natural industries the government is doing just the opposite; it is destroying some of our most important industries, those on which Canada has counted and on which we should continue to count for our survival.
The beef industry is being driven out of business. Now the fruit and vegetable producers will also suffer through the failure of the government to take adequate measures to have the tariffs change as the season progresses, first from the south up the Pacific coast to British Columbia, and then east and into the next big fruit and vegetable growing area, the Niagara peninsula.
I hope the minister will take note of my remarks and that appropriate changes will be forthcoming in committee whether it be the standing committee or a committee of the whole House. It disturbs me to think of second and third generation Canadians who have put their energies and Finances into these important industries now being driven out of business because of rising input costs. Even water for irrigation is becoming more and more expensive on the peninsula where I live. So are fertilizers and transportation. The charge on the ferry from the island to the mainland has doubled within the last six months. This, of course, will affect the cost of transporting goods. But even on the island we should be able to maintain these industries instead of watching them disappear.
I conclude where I set out, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the unfortunate effects of this legislation will be to destroy many of Canada's natural industries-I choose my words carefully in saying "Canada's natural industries"-because it does not provide the protection they so desperately need.

Mir. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) introduced this item of business to the House it was with a high degree of confidence that it would go through without very much, if any, consideration. One reason it has to be considered, however, is the minister's remarks as he explained and justified the bill, I think they bear repeating, just to brush up his memory a little bit. As reported at page 466 of Hansard for October 26, he said:
The principal provision of this bill will continue, until June 30, 1977, a number of the temporary reductions which were first introduced as an anti-inflationary measure in the budget of February 19, 1973, and which had been scheduled to expire on June 30 of this year. Several food products have been added to the list of items on which temporary tariff cuts were in force prior to June 30. These include fresh pork, ham, bacon, macaroni and other pasta products. In addition, deeper cuts than those previously in force have been made on certain canned meats.
In view of the fact that the pork industry of Canada is again in a low income cycle and is about to go through the process of losing between $10 and $25 per carcass, this is certainly an unkind bill, Mr. Speaker. The statistics and market trends were on hand the day this bill was introduced, so it should have been withheld and revised.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: When one considers the number of pork producers there are in Canada, I think I should read a little further. The minister said:
I should mention, however, that tires, tubes and scissors-
Let us not forget the scissors.
-have been dropped from the list because it was judged that the tariff reductions previously in force were causing serious problems for Canadian producers and adversely affecting employment in Canada.
Is the minister not aware that the pork industry employs people, Mr. Speaker? Is he not aware that pork producers are losing money they cannot afford to lose?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)-Health-Swine influenza-Report of advisory committee-Reason for delay of mass immunization program; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Auditor General-Implementation of recommendations of independent review committee-Government position.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's

earlier one. This is the problem. I assume it is a combination of stupidity and unwillingness on the part of the government to recognize this problem of the growing seasons varying across Canada, and failure to recognize the west-I am surprised that there are no voices on the other side objecting to this- which has caused the government to ignore these industries.
It just so happens, to choose one particular fruit, that strawberries come to season on the west coast earlier than they do in the east, for obvious reasons. They come to season even earlier in California and New Mexico. But what happens? The strawberries from California and New Mexico are imported into Canada under favourable conditions, but when they come into fruit on the west coast there is no protection for them and they have to compete with strawberries from the United States and Mexico. The same thing happens with tomatoes. Our agriculturalists on the west coast are closing up shop for this very reason. If this government has any intention of providing us with long-term, home grown food, they are not going about it in the right way with these revisions to Customs Tariff.
Flowers, I insist, although one of the pleasanter things of life, are still a part of life even though they are not food. Our Christmas holly is being undersold in the eastern market- which is a big market-simply because that particular product is not protected by tariffs at the right time.
I think, also, of the intervention of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) when he was speaking on October 26. He was speaking of the amount by which imports to the United States and elsewhere of various agricultural products have increased over the past few years. I would like to quote from page 472 of Hansard for October 26 as follows:
-in 1975 Canada imported 370 per cent more berries than in 1973. Some 58 per cent more apples were imported in 1975 than in 1973, 200 per cent more honey, 74 per cent more jams, 294 per cent more chicken, 33 per cent more canned ham, and 1,086 per cent more tobacco-
I will not go into the question of tobacco, but here we have natural Canadian industries which are being driven out of business. I just do not understand what this government is trying to do. I am fearful to reach the conclusion that it is deliberately trying to drive Canada into the import business rather than the export business. For example, I have here a letter from the former minister of national revenue, dated June 27, 1975. I had been raising this question for three or four years. The letter deals with plants, flowers and the horticultural industry and says that seasonal duties do not apply to cut flowers nor to plants, and that the value of the duty of these goods is determined in the same manner as for other imports into Canada; that is, duty is collected on a fair market price or the selling price, whichever is lower. It also says that fair market value under Canadian customs law is the open market selling price of like goods in the country of export at the time of shipment to Canada.
All right; but there are no seasonal duties imposed to protect the Canadian industry. Surely there are enough specialists in the Department of National Revenue and in the Department
Customs Tariff
of Finance to determine the level which would guarantee the survival of Canadian food-growing industries. The hon. member for Battle River and the hon. member for Vegreville talked about the beef industry. Vegetables have to go along with beef. There is cabbage and there are potatoes; I do not want to look into the potato business to find out how many potatoes are being imported into this country when there are perfectly good potato-growing areas here. We have them in my own riding. There are also areas for growing apples, tomatoes and cherries.
This government has to look both longitudinally, from the west to the east, and latitudinally so that it will know the differences in climate in this country. Here, in the east, there are recognizable differences; there is snow on the ground in the winter, and there are bright, hot and humid summers. But the growing season starts earlier in the west, and as soon as the government realizes this I hope it will protect the industry which is the backbone of that area.
I assume some help is given to the agricultural industry in the Niagara peninsula, but that does not help the industry in British Columbia. The pricing of goods on the eastern market, which is a big market, is a complex thing. There are freight rates and duties, and these matters must be taken into account in determining the price on the market in the east of products coming from as far away as British Columbia. For example, the Christmas holly growers on the west coast have been complaining about transportation costs. The Department of Transport has changed the manner in which freight rates are calculated. They used to be calculated on the basis of weight, but now it is on the basis of volume. Surely hon. members recognize that a large package of holly weighs very little but takes up much space. This underlines the transportation problem as goods come from the west coast.
In addition, the cost of fertilizer has gone up. With regard to greenhouses, I am sure the cost of glass has gone up. The cost of heating has gone up. We have a benign climate on the west coast, but it is not totally benign; we have to provide heat from time to time; we have to heat our greenhouses in order to bring on products so they can reach the market in time.
Another matter which is of concern in my riding is the nursery industry. Nurserymen have been complaining to me about the different ways their products are imported, and about the lack of protection they get one way or the other. For example, imported, potted plants for starting come in untaxed if they are in pots. If the nurserymen in my riding can grow from seed and want to pot their plants for selling, and have to import these small pots so that the plants may be sold in suitable containers, the containers themselves are taxable; but potted plants with the same kind of plastic container are not taxable. This is grossly unfair. The containers are not always available in Canada, and some of them are not of the quality required for proper merchandising.
I cannot help asking why this is so. It demonstrates neglect of the west, for one thing, and I hope that with the presence in the cabinet of a British Columbia member, the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo), we
80001-36%

Customs Tariff
undertake to review this tariff item with a view to reducing or removing it on these pieces of equipment, because they are in wide use and the demand is indeed growing.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-15, the adjustments to the Customs Tariff, I should like to limit my remarks to an appeal to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to remove the customs duty on some specific cultural items. Since the announcement of the federal government's official policy of multiculturalism five years ago this month, we have witnessed increased activity by ethnocultural organizations, particularly in respect of folkloric presentations. Encouraged by the federal government not only to preserve but also to develop one's cultural heritage, and above all to share it with fellow citizens, increasing thereby an appreciation of the cultural richness and national identity, these ethnocultural organizations-I must emphasize that they are non-profit associations-have gone to considerable expense to provide national costumes, rare instruments and other objects for festivals, exhibits, lectures and other cultural activities.
Also, these same ethnocultural organizations either visit other countries or receive visiting cultural groups either on their own initiative or in a spirit of co-operation as directed by cultural agreements between Canada and other countries such as, for example, the recent Canada-Japan cultural agreement. It therefore behooves us to support these ethnocultural organizations, especially those of a non-profit nature, when they request the removal of the customs duty on imported articles unavailable in Canada. I refer in particular to unique and expensive national costumes for dance ensembles in Canada. These are subject to duties under tariff item 52305-1 which carries a duty rate of 22xh per cent ad valorum under the most favoured nation tariff applicable to importations from many countries.
If the costumes are made of 50 per cent or more, by weight, of man-made fibres not containing wool or hair, they are subject to duty at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem under tariff item 56300-1. Also included are tariff items 53305-1, 56805-1 and 61105-1. I should like to emphasize to the Minister of Finance the fact that the articles concerned are authentically national and are unavailable in Canada. They are hand-made by artists or skilled craftsmen, and incorporate traditional or artistic characteristics that are typical of the geographic region where they are produced. Naturally, they are expensive. A national costume of this kind may cost $500 or more, and when a dance group of 24 people has to use these costumes the cost to their sponsoring ethnocultural organization is great. Surely we should be able to grant these organizations relief at least from customs duty.
I have made similar representations to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin), not only the present ministers but their predecessors, since 1969 according to my records. So the excuse that the appropriate officials do not have an opportunity to study this

problem is not valid. This afternoon I urge the Minister of Finance not just to recognize the problem and approach it sympathetically but, above all, to grant favourable consideration to a legitimate request for the long-awaited duty-free entry of such cultural items.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my intervention this afternoon is directed toward the thesis that the long-term effect of the proposed tariff revisions will be to destroy many of Canada's natural industries. I shall be directing my attention to the following industries, namely, the market garden industry, the horticultural industry, and the nurserymen, because they are not provided adequate tariff protection. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who preceded me in this debate drew attention to the fact that the purpose of these revisions is to lower food costs. These are short-term effects. The long-term effects-and they will not be all that long-will be to drive some of these food producing industries, and I have mentioned one in particular, straight out of business because they are not getting the protection they need.
To set the tone for this intervention I will go back to a motion under Standing Order 43 which I have been introducing regularly in the last four years, in the hope that I will get this message home. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on the vernal equinox each year since I have been in the House I have made it a practice to present to members of the House daffodils grown in my riding. The snow is still on the ground here. It is more than a symbolic gesture, it is a meaningful one. It was the Minister of Finance who simply said that it was very nice to receive these daffodils. I asked if he had gone beyond that, beyond the daffodils, to the real meaning. I should like to read my motion as it is recorded at page 12043 of Hansard of March 23 of this year. It reads as follows:
That the Minister of Agriculture, in consultation with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, undertake a review of the regulations relating to the imposition of seasonal tariffs affecting fruits, vegetables and flowers imported into Canada so that the fruit, vegetable and flower growers in the garden riding of Esquimalt-Saanich, and elsewhere in the garden belt of Canada, shall be able to continue their commercial operations and provide those of us who have to spend so much of our lives under the snow in the east with the symbol of spring which the daffodils now available to hon. members so graphically provide.
That part of the message went completely over their heads. They were so overwhelmed by receiving the daffodils that they did not see beyond them. For four years now that gesture of mine has been intended to save an industry. It is an industry which feeds us. The thrust of the revisions is to destroy it. The government is killing that industry, it is trying to make us buy our vegetables and fruits overseas. 1 find this completely unacceptable.
I do not think it is necessary for me to go into a summary of climatology or geography to explain my point to this government. They ought to be able to follow the matter of the latitude and of the sun coming farther north during the springtime. Eventually, in the summertime when the sun is in the northern hemisphere, we have our growing season. Of course, on the west coast we have an earlier growing season, but farther south in southern California they have an even
October 28, 1976

losing a golden opportunity to strengthen an industry that needs some confidence and stability at this point in time, agriculture which is still one of the primary industries in this country.
We have had ad hoc policies and interventions by this government, particularly by the Minister of Agriculture who asserts that he is the friend of the farmers, which have caused loss of confidence, created uncertainty within the industry and driven producers out of business.
So far as the pork industry is concerned, this particular measure does not augur well for the industry because the tariff reductions on pork and pork products have a rather devastating impact on the pork industry. There are two things that bear noting. First, there was absolutely no consultation with the pork industry in regard to this cutback in tariffs. Second, this move, being unilateral, did not provide a trade-off of existing tariff arrangements with the countries that were affected. It seems to me that as an old horse-trader you usually try to get something to barter. Certainly you do not give something away without getting anything in return. But really that is what has happened. We have given away a protective device, which quite frankly was really a reciprocal device, and we have lost our competitive position. In its response to this measure, the Canadian Pork Council points out that this was a unilateral decision, taken without any consultation or knowledge on their part.
What has happened to the pork industry? Mr. Speaker, pork gradings in Canada have declined by 8 per cent in 1976 over 1975. In western Canada there was a decline of 17 per cent. Prices have fallen dramatically. For example, the price in Alberta in the first quarter of 1976 was $68.63 per hundred, dressed. The price in Edmonton this week was $43.45, and in Calgary it was $43.46. What other industry or sector of our society has been subjected to this kind of reduction in income?


Fred Alward McCain: Not the scissors industry.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Certainly not the scissors industry, as my hon. friend says. It is interesting to note that in his speech the Minister of Finance pointed out that measures had to be taken to protect the tire, tube and scissors industry because it was judged that the tariff reductions previously in force were causing serious problems to Canadian producers and were seriously affecting employment in Canada.
We have a situation in which the scissors industry is regarded as being more important in this country than the livestock industry. That is a shame, Mr. Speaker. We have just come out of a situation in 1971-72 when the price of hogs was from $25 to $30. The interesting fact is that in the United States the number of hogs is on the increase, and our imports for the first seven months of 1974 represented 20,269,000 pounds; in 1975,
55.478.000	pounds; and for the first seven months of 1976,
90.905.000	pounds.
That is what has been happening in the pork industry. The confidence of this industry, which enjoyed a bit of stability for
Customs Tariff
a couple of years, has now been rocked. This measure serves neither the best interests of the pork industry nor of the consumers of this country. Our negotiators either have done a bad job or have been given ill-founded directions by the government. We are treated, by this bill, to a reduction in the production of the agricultural producers without a corresponding reduction in the input required to produce the product.
In conclusion, I should like to deal for a moment with a specific example. I had an exchange of letters with the previous minister of finance on this particular item. It has to do with the portable corrals, steel corrals, partitions, stalls, and so on, manufactured in the United States and sold in Canada in great quantities. There is an agent in my constituency who sells well in excess of $100,000 worth of this equipment a year. It comes into this country under tariff item 44603-1 which is described as stall panels, cattle gates, alley chutes for cattle, and so on.
I bring this matter to the attention of the House because there is an increased use of steel panels and corrals in the cattle industry both in the production of cattle and, perhaps more importantly, in the handling of cattle. This equipment is also used to a great extent by agricultural fairs and exhibitions. These items are now subject to a tariff of 17'/2 per cent when they come into this country. The item includes alley chutes, gates, creep-feeders, loading ramps, portable feeders, and bunks, all used in connection with the production of livestock. I want to place this before the House because in most cases machinery and equipment which is used for agricultural purposes is not subject to tariff. I know there are exceptions, but generally speaking there is no tariff on machinery of this nature.
Moreover, I believe it is interesting to note that we have a fairly close balance in respect of agricultural input between Canada and the United States. As a matter of fact, a document which was put out by Agriculture Canada, entitled "Canada's trade and selected inputs, 1974-75" points out that the United States remains Canada's principal trading partner in agricultural input, accounting for 85 per cent of Canada's exports and 84 per cent of Canada's imports in 1975.
The previous minister of finance indicated that a number of Canadian manufacturers were producing this type of equipment. If they are producing this type of equipment, I would hope they would come forward and try to capture some of this business which is available, because to date the dealer in my constituency is unable to find any source of supply on a continual basis and is therefore unable to meet the demand. I might say that the demand is not only in the agricultural industry of western Canada; this company has been selling across the country.
The 17'/2 per cent tariff is an added input. If there were an industry in this country producing the same type of equipment, I would say by all means it should be protected. But if there is not an industry in this country which needs protection, then certainly the tariff is simply an added cost to the already increasing cost of input in respect of the production of livestock. I would hope the minister and his officials would
548

October 28, 1976
Customs Tariff
capacity to produce. This leads us to the high import sectors such as fruit and vegetables. This is where we get into trouble. There is nothing in the government's agricultural policies which encourages the production of vegetables and fruit in this country. I realize we are limited by climatic conditions, but the imbalance becomes more disturbing year after year. We are presently importing some $500 million worth of fruit and nuts, and between $265 million and $300 million worth of vegetables. Our exports are insignificant.
As a Canadian from the west, where agriculture is the primary industry, I am deeply concerned about our increasing dependence on imported food products. First of all, I think it is politically unwise for us to become so dependent on imported products to feed ourselves. Second, I am concerned about the fact that an important industry in this country is being destroyed. The Minister of Agriculture alluded to this in his speech in Calgary. One of the things I admire about the Minister of Agriculture is that he must have 12 stock speeches, six of which he uses in front of consumer groups, whilst keeping the others for use in front of producer groups. Nevertheless, he said he was concerned that imported food products were accounting for an increasingly large portion of total retail sales in this country.
He pointed out that of $18.3 billion in total food sales in Canada in 1975, almost $6 billion worth, or 32 per cent, came from outside Canada. In 1975, that figure was about $4 billion worth, representing 25 per cent of total food sales. In 1973, imports amounted to only $2.5 billion, or 18 per cent of the total. Thus, in a period of three years we have increased the proportion of imported food from 18 per cent to 32 per cent, almost double.
What bothers me is the fact that legislation such as we are dealing with today serves only as a further incentive to increase the proportion of imported food in relation to the total food dollar spent in this country. Canada certainly has significant production potential within the agricultural industry. I do not believe we have tapped the true resourcefulness of our farmers and growers. My criticism, Mr. Speaker, is directed not against them but against government policy, since there is no question that given the proper incentive, growers could reverse the trend which is now being experienced. This is alluded to in an article that appeared in the Globe And Mail on Saturday, July 10, entitled "Serious gap between output and potential in Canadian agriculture and food production". The article was written by James Rusk. I want to read it into the record because I think it summarizes the plight this industry finds itself in today:
Agriculture and food production in Canada is "in serious trouble and very sick," according to the president of the Agricultural Economics Research Council of Canada, Gordon MacEachern.
The gap between achievement and potential in food and agriculture production is widening, he told the annual meeting of the Canadian Feed Manufacturers Association in Toronto.
"Over-all, agricultural output has seriously declined in absolutes over recent years.
[Mr. Mazankowski.)
For example, as of the first quarter of this year, Statistics Canada reports the index of agricultural production has steadily declined by about 20 per cent from earlier 1970-71 levels.
This, of course, has been a turbulent period, but the rather favourable incentives for crops have not resulted in a significant response to date."
This recent growth pattern comes on top of one of the slowest growths-if not the slowest-in output of any developed or developing country during the period since 1962, a rate of 1.25 per cent a year in farm output, well below that of Canadian food demand.
"This slows growth in agriculture and food exports in volume terms and an increase in volume of imports."
Canada has maintained a net export position for only a few commodities, such as grains and oilseeds, but even in these its output and export performance has remained more or less static.
"Our poor output and export performance stands in marked contrast to that achieved by our neighbours to the south, particularly in the last four to five years, but even longer."
Canadian cost-price structures relative to competitors show that Canadian agricultural and food production has suffered a serious decline in competitive position in the past three to four years.
That results to a large degree, Mr. Speaker, from the unfavourable political climate and the inward-looking kind of agricultural policy that we have in this country. We are committed to contraction of our agricultural potential, rather than expansion. As I said before, one way in which we could counter the requirements for energy that we will have to import into this country is by increasing our productive potential and capacity and, indeed, our export position in agricultural products.
While we have measures here which are designed to reduce the price of agricultural products, one significant fact that bears consideration is that the inputs which are necessary to produce agricultural commodities continue to increase. I would like to cite a government document entitled "News and Features" put out by Agriculture Canada and dated May 28,
1976.	This document reviews the increase in agricultural inputs in this country during 1976. It predicts that the price of petroleum products will be up by 25 per cent, that fertilizers will be up by 10 per cent to 15 per cent, that agricultural chemicals will be up 10 per cent to 15 per cent, that manpower will be up 15 per cent, machinery 10 per cent, and interest rates on farm financing will be up. No prediction is made, but we all know that interest rates in this country have continued to increase. Hourly rates for mechanical repairs have increased by an average of from $12 an hour in 1975 to $14 in 1976. The only commodity cited which has dropped in price is baler twine; this was $18 to $20 a bale and it is down to about $10 from a year ago. That is the only decrease.
At the same time, cash receipts in the agricultural industry in 1976 have increased by a mere 1.1 per cent, according to Statistics Canada. This has resulted in a tightening up of the cost-price squeeze which has been a problem for farmers and producers in this country for generations, causing a number of producers to go out of business.
As my colleague from Battle River pointed out, beef producers are going out of business by the dozen. The productive potential of agricultural products in this country has been lost. We are failing to improve our balance of trade by utilizing a potential which should be utilized. Most importantly, we are
October 28, 1976

that industry. The government applied export restrictions on the movement of beef to the United States at that time because the price was approaching 60 cents on the hoof. However, this government certainly did not bail out the beef producers when the price on the hoof dropped significantly below the production cost of the animal. The minister refused to bring forth a cow-calf program to assist that very important sector of the beef industry. The provincial governments had to assist in an attempt to bail out the cow-calf producer.
The hon. member dealt in detail with the beef import situation which is now affecting us and which is driving the price of our products dramatically below the cost of production. He also referred to the fact that the government fails to recognize this when it simply refuses to institute a beef import law similar to that of the United States. He pointed out it is the only country that does not have protection for its producers.
It is significant to note that in spite of our small population, Canada is the fourth largest importer of beef in world trade channels. What a shame, Mr. Speaker. That is really unbelievable for this country, yet it is allowed to happen under this administration. We have the capacity, potential and know how, but because of our stupid tariff and agricultural policies this country, with only 22 million people, is the fourth largest importer of beef in the world. As I say, it is a shame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is obvious that our agricultural policy is not being formulated by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and his departmental officials; it is being formulated by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This minister has lost his clout. He had a little clout when he aided the Liberals in southwestern Ontario, but he is finished now. The minister has been a total letdown, a total failure. I do not blame the Minister of Finance. He represents an urban constituency with a different community of interest. I am sure he defends that interest very well. However, the Minister of Agriculture has not defended the welfare and the interests of farmers and producers in this country. For that, I am sorry.
Those involved in agriculture are not being well served by this administration. My friend looks me straight in the eye. He knows this and I am sure he feels badly about it. He represents an area where there is a very significant beef industry. I would welcome his participation in this debate, because I know he speaks with sincerity and dedication. He might have some influence with the Minister of Agriculture and other ministers who formulate agricultural policy. The effects of this bill will be harmful to the producers and to agriculture in general.
Trade is a very serious problem in this country. We should be preoccupied with improving our trade picture, particularly in the area of agricultural production and processed agricultural products. Above all, we should address ourselves to improving our agricultural trading position with the United States. This bill certainly militates against that objective; it
Customs Tariff
does the exact opposite; it invites more imports, resulting in a price reduction for our producers at a time when costs of production continue to increase. That is the kind of war against inflation in which this government is engaged. Look at the record. Every newspaper in this country refers to Canada's poor prospects in terms of its merchandise trade. I quote from the August 17 edition-of the Ottawa Citizen:
Prospects for Canada's international trade and balance of payments are poor, particularly since the full impact of increased energy prices and imports is still to be felt, a study released Monday by the Conference Board in Ottawa says.
It goes on to say:
The outlook is for a substantial and increasing over-all trade deficit in energy beginning in 1977 and continuing into the 1980s.
Agriculture is one of our prime renewable resources. Surely that is the ace in the hole when it comes to improving our balance of trade position. We have the capacity. All we need is a healthy political climate. I should like to call attention to an article which appeared in the Financial Times of September 27. It reads:
Canada's share of world exports expressed in U.S. dollars dropped by about one-third to 3.8 per cent in 1975 from 5.4 per cent in 1970. But in the same period, imports as a percentage of spending on goods in Canada rose to 32.9 per cent from 26.1 per cent.
Thus, while Canadian exporters were losing their share of international business, foreign exporters were occupying more of the Canadian market, producing an obvious "scissor" effect.
One way of reversing the trade imbalance is by vigorously engaging in the production and sale of our renewable resources. In 1975 Canada's trade deficit amounted to something like $1.5 billion, and in 1974 it was in the order of $200 million. It looks as though for 1976 it will amount to about $100 million. The picture in relation to agricultural trade is more favourable, but if it were not for the export of grain and grain products, the state of the industry, from the point of view of exports and imports, would be bleak, not to say sick. For example, look at the agricultural trading pattern in 1975. We imported $2,891 billion worth of agricultural commodities and we exported $3.9 billion, which resulted in a favourable balance of about $1.1 billion. But if we exclude grain and grain products which account for $3.1 billion, we find ourselves in a very sorry position.
Take dairy products, a field in which we obviously have potential for increased production, judging from the surpluses which have arisen. In 1975 we imported $58,323,000 worth, while exporting only $36 million. In 1974 we exported products worth $71 million, and imported $78 million. In 1973 we imported almost $90 million worth of dairy products, and exported only $65 million worth. Thus, over a three-year period we find ourselves in a disturbing net deficit position.
Consider the case of poultry and eggs. In 1975 such imports were worth $32.7 million, and we exported $19 million worth. In 1974 imports were valued at $24.5 million, and exports $24 million. In 1973 imports were valued at $19 million, and exports at $17 million. We have the capacity to maintain at least an equilibrium in trade in the products we have the

October 28, 1976
Customs Tariff
splitting apart. The fact is that this government is pulling it apart: by putting into effect policies which could deprive hundreds of thousands of people of their livelihood, the government is splitting the country apart. There are in Canada today
100,000	beef producers. Virtually every beef producer is in danger of losing his livelihood because for a long time he has been forced to operate and sell at below the cost of production.
This government has no farm policy and no long-term food policy. Under this government one sees only policies of dislocation in the marketplace, policies introduced in an attempt to justify the anti-inflation program. In the long run, food costs will have to be higher if Canadian producers are not to be driven out of business.
In April, 1976, there were about 300,000 more feeder cattle in Canada than there were in April, 1975. This increased population was brought into being because the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board had initiated a program called LIFT, which should have been called "Goof." The minister's program was designed to entice farmers of this country to seed grainland back to grass. The government established programs across the country for encouraging people to increase their cow herds. The result was 300,000 more feeder cattle in the country compared to the previous year. But almost immediately after the government decided that there should be an increase in cattle herds across this country, the economic situation in the country changed. Even though Canada produced domestically enough beef for this country, the government opened the gates and we became the dumping ground for the cheaper, grass-fed beef of New Zealand and Australia. That policy causes tremendous difficulties, because there was an increase of 90 million pounds of frozen boneless beef being shipped into this country.
The story used to be that Australian beef could not compete with Canadian beef because it was not the same quality. At one time such beef from Australia was raised essentially in the interior of that country. They used to slaughter five-year old animals which had been grass-fed and not fed on grain. Such animals did not find their way into the restaurant trade; they were used in the manufacturing trade. But the case is altogether different now. The beef entering Canada today is of a different quality. It is obtained from younger animals which have been fed by different methods. Such foreign beef competes directly with that produced in this country.
I underscore these facts because there is no long-term food policy in Canada. The rancher today cannot begin to manage his affairs for the long term owing to this government's policies.


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


An hon. Member:: No.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset of my remarks associate myself-indeed, echo his

words-with the remarks of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone). He spoke forcefully on issues confronting the beef industry. He spoke with a high degree of sincerity and a knowledge which it is evident the government does not possess.
I am pleased to note the presence in the Chamber of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). The representation of the agricultural community in the Liberal caucus is slight. The hon. member for Battle River gave us an overview of the difficulties of this country's beef industry. Those difficulties are real. The beef industry makes up a significant portion of the agricultural community and is a significant part of our entire economic community.
I also agree with the hon. member's assessment that this government's attack on inflation is tantamount to an attack on the food producing sector in our society. I agree that something must be done quickly if we are to reverse the present trend and not allow the large-scale importation of food products to destroy the viability of our agricultural industry. It is unfortunate that the government tried to use reduced food prices as ammunition in its fight against inflation. The route it has chosen has injured our producers. This bill will have the effect of lowering the price to producers of agricultural products. It raises the prospect of increasing the importation of food products into Canada. Altogether, this has a detrimental effect on our balance of trade and on a very important industry in this country, agriculture.
This bill sets out to create serious problems for the pork industry, the producers of pork and pork products, as well as the fruit and vegetable industry. This government's attack on inflation has been an attack on the producers of this country. As the hon. member pointed out, the whole thrust of this government's war against inflation has been against our food producers. When it talks in glowing terms about reducing the price of food by 3.1 per cent over last year, it simply means that its war on inflation is being fought on the backs of the producers. Its actions clearly confirm that fact.
In 1973 inflation was raising its ugly head and becoming a very serious issue. A food prices review committee was established. That was a standing committee set up by this House of Commons to review the price of food. Other items were contributing very seriously to inflation at that time, however, this government singled out the price of food as being the major component in the inflationary factor. The Food Prices Review Board was established. It, too, singled out food as being the major culprit in fanning the fires of inflation, not to mention anything about the cost of input, such things as labour, transportation and the advent of the user-pay concept. Dramatic increases were taking place at that time, but this government singled out food as the major item contributing to rampant inflation.
In the fall of 1973, when the price of beef went to extraordinary high levels, we saw this government move in and take action, one of the first of many interventions in the beef industry which, I might say, was the beginning of the end of
October 28, 1976

that it is saying to the heavily populated cities of the country that the government is willing to trade off the producing regions for political gain.
From August, 1974, to August, 1975, Canada imposed import controls on live cattle and beef, but the controls permitted an inflow of 100 per cent of the previous five-year average. This did not give any protection at all to the producers. It is important to notice the price difference between Canada and the United States in regard to the importation of oceanic beef. From August, 1975, when import controls were suspended, it was noted that oceanic cattle were entering Canada at 10 Cents to 12 cents per pound cheaper than the same quality of beef going to the United States. This unfavourable price spread persisted throughout the balance of 1975, and worsened in 1976. By April, 1976, Canada was allowing beef to be imported at 16 cents to 17 cents per pound cheaper than beef of identical quality being shipped to the United States. In May, 1976, offshore imports of beef and veal were running 40 per cent ahead of 1975 levels, and by October imports had increased by 60 per cent over the previous year.
This government has the audacity to go around the country claiming that the Anti-Inflation Act is working because food prices have decreased, yet it fails to recognize that anyone who has entered the fourth year of the beef marketing system is selling livestock below the cost of production. I have sympathy for anyone who has to buy a basket of food today. One of this country's objectives should be to produce food as cheaply as possible. That cannot happen as long as the kind of long-range policy we have drives people out of production. We are faced with depressed prices in Canada. Canadian cattlemen will almost certainly be forced to greatly reduce their herds, and in the long run we will have either lost a major producing industry, we will pay higher prices for meat, or even import almost all our meat.
On June 11 Canada imposed what has become known as the infamous six-cent under rule whereby the government unnecessarily made an agreement that oceanic beef cannot be sold in Canada at a price discount greater than six cents under identical quality beef being sold in the United States. This forced Canadian beef prices to floor levels, and will continue to do so as long as the rule is in force. The obvious result is that the government's action has dangerously eroded our trading relationships in beef and veal with the United States. Anyone who has had the experience in recent months of talking to farmers and ranchers in the United States will recognize that this has a very serious and detrimental effect on our traditional trading pattern of two-way trade with the United States.
I think it is very important to underscore the difference between Canada's trade with the United States and that of the oceanic countries. The first difference in our trade with the United States is that it is a two-way trade; not only does Canada export to the United States but we also import. The two countries are producing at about equal cost and have an almost equal standard of living. There is quite a difference when you compare that with oceanic beef with regard to which almost every other beef producing country has established a
Customs Tariff
set of protection quotas. Canada has become a dumping ground.
As an indication of how serious this situation is, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that ranchers today are gathering at meetings all across the country to protest the actions of this government. Nothing can underscore their concern more than the fact that 300 people gathered in Lethbridge two days ago on two days' notice. Mr. Speaker, I repeat that 300 ranchers gathered on two days' notice to voice their concern about what is happening to this country's producers. In my province, Alberta, virtually every day meetings are held in local auction marts and community halls. Ranchers are protesting. They want to know what they can do. They know they are about to lose their farming and ranching businesses if the government's present import quotas are not changed. In my constituency a meeting was held on October 22. Eight hundred ranchers showed up from across Alberta, parts of British Columbia and parts of Saskatchewan to learn what was happening in the marketing of beef and veal.
There is great concern on the part of ranchers because exports from New Zealand increased by 139 per cent this year, and from Australia by 10 per cent. Mr. Speaker, we have literally become a dumping ground for cheap meat so that the Prime Minister can tell the people of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and southern Ontario that the anti-inflation program is working. He tries to demonstrate the truth of his assertion by saying, "Last year your food bill rose 10 per cent. This year it has risen only 6.2 per cent." The number of items which have actually decreased in price is small. You will find that one such decrease has occurred in a product which the government has allowed to be imported into this country in order to keep food costs down. I am referring to meat. While it is creditable to attempt to keep food prices down, it is not creditable to try to aid one part of the country at the expense of another. That is what is malicious about the present government's actions.
Let us consider some of the facts laid before the House on Tuesday by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker). He said, as reported on page 472 of Hansard, that Canada has a cheap food policy, something the producer regions of this country know. Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that the government considers those in the producer regions as politically expendable. It does all it can to provide cheap food, despite the injustice such a policy may occasion to a certain part of the country. For example, in 1975 this country imported 83 per cent more dairy foods than in 1973. We imported 370 per cent more berries than in 1973, 58 per cent more apples, 200 per cent more honey, 74 per cent more jams, 294 per cent more chicken, and 33 per cent more canned ham.
In 1974 Canada imported 5 million pounds of chicken from the United States. Figures up to June of 1976 show that Canada imported 22 million pounds of chicken from the United States, or 400 per cent more than in 1975. Small wonder that Canada seems to be eroding at the seams or

October 28, 1976
Customs Tariff
macaroni and other pasta products. In addition, deeper cuts than those previously enforced have been made on certain canned meats ... The temporary reductions proposed in this bill affect imports of consumer goods valued at about $1.6 billion in terms of 1975 imports.
The following is the important part:
Close to half of these are in the food sector, about $727 million worth.
So we see that while ranchers and producers on the prairies enter their fourth year of operating at below cost of production, this callous and insensitive government is willing to consider them politically expendable simply to give the appearance that the Anti-Inflation Board is working. In other words, the idea that we have cheaper food because the AIB has been successful is simply a fabrication. The truth of the matter is that any cheap food we have in this country is here because we have imported it at considerably cheaper rates, and in the process of doing that we are literally destroying whole regions of Canada and the production which takes place in those regions. What is happening is that the sense of power of this government has caused it to feel that it can write off an area of Canada.
In terms of seats, the Liberal government does not have much power from the prairies, so it feels it can write off the prairies. The government knows that there are more members from Montreal and Toronto than there are from all three prairie provinces combined, so it imposes an import quota which allows this country to bring in cheap food. That is literally destroying the backbone of the economy of the prairie provinces. Similar statements can be made for the Atlantic provinces.
To some extent I sympathize with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) because I realize the bind he is in within the cabinet. In response to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) with reference to the 6-cent under clause on frozen meat from Australia and New Zealand, the minister responded by saying that new negotiations will take place. He said he hopes the result will be that meat shipped to Canada will be sold at a price no different from the price of meat shipped to the United States under the quota system which has been imposed.
It is interesting to note that when he was speaking to the Cattlemen's Association here just two days ago, it was admitted by one of the top economic authorities of the Department of Agriculture that the department had never favoured the 6-cent under clause. The truth of the matter is that the minister obviously lost out in cabinet. Perhaps with good intentions the minister was trying to protect our agricultural industry, but so it would appear that the AIB was working, farmers, ranchers and producers of apples and other products were simply sold down the river.
Since 1969 Canada has imported about 7 per cent of its domestic consumption of boneless beef. Traditionally, these imports were of low quality and did not compete directly with Canadian products. After 1974, however, following a period in which the government encouraged ranchers to increase herd
[Mr. Malone.)
sizes, there was a growing importation of medium and high quality beef in direct competition with domestic production. The nature of that activity placed us in direct conflict with our traditional trading partners, namely, the United States of America.
Because of lack of policy in respect of quotas of meat coming in from other countries, Canada has become almost an enemy of the United States in the area of trade in meat. Anyone who talks to the producers, farmers and ranchers of the United States knows they are angry at Canada for dumping meat on a run-through from oceanic countries to Canada and then forcing the meat of Canada to be dumped into the United States. Canada, a country that has the capacity to produce enough domestic beef to meet its requirements, is the only nation in the world with no controls over the quantity of imports. All other major beef producing nations impose effective import controls. I think it is absolutely shocking that Canada, as a major meat producing country, is the only country without import controls.
Let us look at some examples, Mr. Speaker. The United States, the world's largest importer of beef, imports nearly 30 per cent of the beef and veal in world trade channels; however, the United States has laws that limit imports to 7 per cent of domestic consumption. If we look at the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community, we note that this group represents the second largest importer of the world's beef. The imports are very closely controlled, however, by means of a complex system of fixed duties, variable levies, ad valorem duties and quotas. In July, 1974, the European Economic Community banned beef and veal imports by way of embargo. Japan is now a major importer of world beef, ranking third behind the European Economic Community and the United States, yet Japan exercises control over imports through state buying agencies, a 25 per cent ad valorem tariff, variable levies and quota allocations. Early in 1974 Japan virtually placed embargoes on all imports of beef and veal until September, 1975.
In 1975 and 1976 Canada literally became a dumping ground for the world's beef and veal surpluses, a situation to which no other country has to date been exposed. I think it is despicable that this government goes around the country praising its anti-inflation program, saying that the AIB is working, when it is driving almost 100,000 farmers and ranchers in this country into a loss situation. The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), and the Minister of Agriculture have to bear responsibility for the 100,000 people who are now entering their fourth year of selling livestock at below the cost of production.
In spite of our small population, Canada now ranks the fourth largest importer of beef in world trade channels. In 1976 Canada ranked first on beef imports, on a per capita basis. Here is a country with the capacity to produce all the beef we need for domestic consumption, yet we are the fourth largest importer of beef in the world. This makes a sham of the government's policies, and Bill C-15 fails to pay any attention to this situation. One of the obvious injustices of Bill C-15 is
October 28, 1976

which is now reduced to 10 per cent. In that year there was a tariff of 10 per cent on extracts of meat and fluid beef, not medicated, while now there is no tariff on it.
We can also see that in 1973 there was a 17'/2 per cent tariff on prepared cereal foods in packages not exceeding 25 pounds weight each, which is now reduced to 10 per cent. That year there was a tariff of 12'/2 per cent on prepared cereal foods, which is now reduced to IV2 per cent. There was a 20 per cent tariff on pot, pearl, rolled, roasted or ground barley, which is now reduced to 10 per cent. Also, there was a 50 per cent tariff on rice, cleaned, which is now reduced by 50 per cent to 25 per cent.
The point I am trying to make is that the claim that the Anti-Inflation Board is working because food prices are down is an absolute fabrication which should be challenged. The fact is that there are 100,000 cattle producers in this country who are entering into their fourth year of production and selling their meat at below the cost of production. In my constituency alone we have 17 ranches going out of business, going into disposal sales because the government has failed to recognize the importance of giving protection to the producers of this country. Instead, it has opted for political gain and is taking the short-circuit of assisting the mismanaged economy by importing cheap foods into this country, and fails to declare a long-term, self-sufficient food policy for Canada.
Tariff rates are down on virtually all foodstuffs. If you look at tariff rates on foodstuffs, one thing that becomes obvious is that those rates have been reduced on practically all foods. I think that proves that the Prime Minister's claim that the Anti-Inflation Board is working because food prices are down is incorrect. It is simply an admission that a province which is totally represented by Progressive Conservative members of parliament is politically expendable in the eyes of the government, even though most of the meat produced in this country comes from Alberta. The government thinks it can solve the problem by importing cheap foods, no matter what harm this does to our producers-because it is the aim of the government to try to stay in power at whatever cost.
On page 6 of Bill C-15 there is a list of vegetable products on which the tariff has been decreased. The list includes cabbage, onions, green peas, rhubarb, green onions, asparagus, and the list goes on and on. This simply underscores the fact that the government has failed to recognize that in helping the consumer-and I appreciate that consumers want to have food which is as cheap as we can produce-it really will not help them because this short-term policy will cost the consumer considerably more money in the long run. That will happen in one of two ways: if beef prices continue as low as they are for another year, ranchers will have no alternative but to go out of business and sell their operations. When that happens, Canada will have lost a very important industry and a valuable commodity for our export market. It also means that we will become dependent on food produced in other countries.
Customs Tariff
In today's Globe and Mail there are some quotations which underscore the position the government has been putting forward and clearly demonstrate some of the false, inaccurate and malicious statements which have been placed before the citizens of Canada. The article reads in part:
Food prices have dropped for the fourth consecutive month and now are an average of 3.1 per cent lower than a year ago, the Anti-Inflation Board said yesterday.
In its monthly food price survey, the board reported significant decreases in the prices of beef, pork, eggs, poultry, fresh fruits-
We cannot deny that; those are facts, and there is nothing to say other than that they are accurate. But that statement fails to point out that those decreases are to the advantage of certain regions of Canada, while other regions are going bankrupt as a result of the policy of this government. I would like to quote further from the Globe and Mail article as follows:
Board vice-chairman June Menzies told a news conference the board can claim some credit because food prices are controlled at the processing, distribution and retail levels, though not at the farm gate.
I believe June Menzies should be asked to resign her position for making that statement. It is not a case of food prices being held down only at levels after the farm gate; the fact is that with the tariff structure of this country as it applies to food, we keep importing food and that has a most significant effect. With regard to the beef industry in this country, 90 million pounds of cheap, grass-fed beef is coming in from oceanic countries, and this is competing at an unprecedented rate with our producers. Obviously, when a person in a responsible position suggests that the Anti-Inflation Board is working because it is controlling prices beyond the farm gate, that person is failing to recognize that thousands of ranchers are being driven out of business.
The sale of cows and breeding stock from this country is up considerably from a few years ago. Canada is running into a very dangerous situation, such that within a few years, as has been quoted by noted authorities, farmers may be selling beef at $1 a pound because of the shortfall which is being created by lack of long-term policies which would give us a constructive and ongoing beef industry. The article goes on to say that fresh vegetables rose 8.9 per cent, and coffee 18 per cent. If we consider various food items other than those related to meats-basically beef, poultry and pork-in fact most food prices are increasing. The article continues:
The food survey said a continuing decline in beef prices is expected to reverse within the next month due to recent increases in live cattle prices.
Dressed hog prices fell 20 per cent in the last month but retail pork was only 3.7 per cent cheaper in mid-October-
I claim that statement to be absolutely false. If we check with cattle associations across the country, we will find that there is no valid reason to believe that the consumer will enjoy a cheaper price for beef, and the producer's efforts will not be rewarded with a good price for his livestock. I would now like to quote the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). As reported at page 466 of Hansard, he stated:
Several food products have been added to the list of items on which temporary tariff cuts were enforced prior to June 30. These include fresh pork, ham, bacon,
80001 -35/4

October 28, 1976
Customs Tariff
I should like, first of all, to demonstrate that much of what is being changed in our Customs Tariff Act has been taking place in an attempt to promote political ambitions in Canada.
I believe it is important as a background that we begin to realize that agriculture has been a very important aspect of all cultures and civilizations. No culture has ever advanced without a deep-rooted respect for, and easy access to, agriculture and agricultural products. But once industrialized, this nation tended to treat agriculture with cynical disregard.
The Canadian food producers have been the victims of a malicious ploy by the Liberal government, not as the national government but toward the central regionalization of this country. In desperation, to patch up its own economic mismanagement it has divided Canada for selfish, political reward. The facts are that there are more members of parliament in the city of Toronto than in the whole of the province of Alberta. Moreover, there are more members of parliament from Toronto and Montreal than there are in the three prairie provinces. That all links together with the Customs Tariff Act when we note that 78 per cent of the beef production in Canada comes from the three prairie provinces, and most of it from the province of Alberta.
With 19 Conservative seats in the province of Alberta, this government, filled with the venom of politics, has decided to sacrifice one region of this country for the glut of continuing in political power. The government claims that the anti-inflation program is working because food costs are down. The truth of the matter is that food costs in this country are not down, and any comment in that regard is simply a fabrication of the facts. The truth is that food costs in Canada are up. What is happening is that the government of today is importing into this country cheap food from countries which produce food at less cost, to give the appearance that food costs generally are down. In other words the government of Canada is sacrificing the producers of this country for the consumers. The only reason food prices appear to be down is the callous and calculated attempt by the government to willingly destroy the livelihood of 100,000 beef producers by the import and export quota regulations for the selfish reason of trying to prove the Anti-Inflation Board is working.
I should like to point out that the situation has become so desperate as to cause grave concern and problems among the producers of this nation. Imports of pork have risen dramatically in recent years since 1973 when we imported into Canada 215 million pounds. In 1975 we imported 453 million pounds, or an increase of 110 per cent. In October of 1976 we increased our imports by another 82 per cent over 1975. It must be noted that at the same time our exports of pork are down 7 per cent.
The point I am trying to make is quite simple. The government of the day is of the opinion that it must justify the anti-inflation program to the Canadian public, and in a malicious and calculating way is attempting, at the expense of the producers, to prove that the anti-inflation program is working.

I have in hand a collection of speeches and policy statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and cabinet ministers. The material is quite weighty and bulky. It is an attempt to demonstrate what the government is saying across the country, namely, that the anti-inflation program is working and the proof of it is that food prices are down.
Let us take a look at how the government has destroyed our pork industry. For example, in 1973 the export of Canadian fresh frozen pork amounted to 696 million pounds. By 1975 it had decreased by more than 1 million pounds. In 1973 exports of fresh frozen pork bellies amounted to 76,890,000 pounds. In 1975 that had decreased to only 16,562,000 pounds. In 1973 we were exporting hams, not cured, totalling 370,368,000 pounds, and by 1975 that, too, had decreased to 255,244,000 pounds.	,
What is happening, in fact, is that the government, in an attempt to establish that the Anti-Inflation Board is working, is deliberately trying to import cheap food into this country. I should like to show hon. members some data which is related to the beef industry. Imports from Australia are now up 10 per cent over last year, but imports from New Zealand have increased by 139 per cent. When we take a look at the amount of fresh frozen beef that has arrived in Canada or which is en route to Canada, we see it totalling 90 million pounds of boneless frozen beef coming from the oceanic countries. Incidentally, that is the amount of meat coming to this country at a time of domestic over-production.
The problem is that while on the one hand the government is trying to establish that the anti-inflation program is working and is spreading the message in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto that food prices are going down, at a time when we hear the Prime Minister speaking in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, southern Ontario or on the national news about food prices being down, when a year ago they were rising at a rate of over 10 per cent and this year they have risen at a rate of only 6.2 per cent, we find that he has written off the producers of this nation in order to make a political gain in the highest populated areas. The claim that the antiinflation program is working is based solely on the fact that food prices are down, as the Prime Minister states, but he fails to tell Canadians that literally thousands of fellow Canadians will go bankrupt while this government struggles to hold on to political power by dishonest means.
I should like to quote from the budget papers of May, 1976, which give a clear example of what is happening with regard to the importation of cheap food into this country. It demonstrates the fallacy which lies in the claim that the Anti-Inflation Board is working. If we compare 1973 with 1976 we find there was a 50 cent tariff on fresh pork in 1973, while at present it is free or there is no tariff on it coming into the country. In 1973 there was a 5 cent tariff on edible meat of all animals, while at present there is no duty on it. In 1973 there was a 15 per cent tariff on canned pork, and now it has been reduced to 10 per cent. In the same year there was a 15 per cent tariff on canned hams, which is now reduced to 10 per cent. In 1973 there was a 15 per cent tariff on canned meats,
October 28, 1976


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the government House leader the plans of the government for its business for today, tomorrow and into next week, if he could look that far ahead for us.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to lend my vision to the hon. member at any time. As the hon. member knows, today we will continue with the Customs Tariff, and if it were finished we would, while the Minister of Finance is here, deal with the currency exchange bill today. Tomorrow we would begin with the advance payments for crops. On Monday, regardless of the progress been made on other legislation, I would like to begin the second reading debate on the borrowers and depositors bill.


Walter David Baker: With regard to the vision, I am prepared to give a year's pass to Laurier House to the government House leader. I did communicate with him with respect to opposition days. I made a suggestion which he requested. I wonder if he has had an opportunity to consider the dates I suggested to him, or would he like to consult further in respect of the statement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for making the suggestion. I have looked at it, although not thoroughly. I believe it does represent a good planning guide for the future. I will attempt to stay within its limits, but reserve the right to make changes as circumstances warrant.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table a joint communique and the cultural and economic agreements between Canada and Japan which were concluded during my visit to Tokyo.


EXCISE TAX ACT TABLING OF WAYS AND MEANS MOTION
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a Notice of Ways and Means Motion in respect of the Excise Tax Act.
Customs Tariff


TABLING OF REPORT OF NATIONAL ADVISORS COUNCIL ON IMMUNIZATION AGENTS
Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two copies, in French and in English, of the report of the National Advisory Committee on Immunizing Agents concerning the 1976-77 vaccination program against the flu.


AIR CANADA ACT, 1976 MEASURE RESPECTING REORGANIZATION OF AIR CANADA
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-17, respecting the reorganization of Air Canada.


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

QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAJ>ER
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the questions be allowed to stand today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-15, to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a matter of tremendous urgency and importance that we have the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-15 to amend the Customs Tariff. The fact is that this is not the normal kind of adjustment in respect of the Customs Tariff Act. What we really are seeing in this country is the use of government legislation and government amendment by order in council to make the kind of policy changes that are in fact dividing the country.
540

October 28, 1976
Oral Questions
some of the injustices that resulted at that time from the way the local marketing boards and provincial marketing boards, which distributed quotas, cut quotas.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
1 admit the validity of the changes which the minister made to his program. Elowever, the problem is that farmers are being made to pay to make up for their quotas.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question and hopefully a very short supplementary for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising from the program being conducted by his department of fingerprinting and investigating some hundreds of UIC employees, outlined in classified UIC documents as being for the purpose of protecting the government from embarrassment by the release of information. Would the minister explain this situation to the House, and state if it is indeed government policy to use public servants for the purpose of withholding legitimate information from parliament or the Canadian people to actually protect the government?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member usually has questions on pools or a pool of questions, and I don't want to get in over my depth on this one. I also do not want to permit him to build a dung heap out of a few bird droppings. I would say to the hon. member that I will look into the allegations that he is making, or the representations that he is making, but it would seem there is no difficulty getting information out of my particular department, either legitimately or illegitimately, at least so far as the hon. member is concerned.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister agree at the same time to look into whether it is now government policy to infringe on the democratic rights of public servants beyond the usual customary, acceptable restrictions, and also whether it is now government policy to misuse and abuse the Official Secrets Act to withhold information from parliament for what are really out and out political purposes?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, there must be three or four questions in there.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Just yes or no.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: If all the questions of the hon. member could be answered in that way I really would be in over my depth.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which relates to questions that have been asked of him previously concerning his trip to Japan. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would inform the House if he had any discussions concerning possible Japanese investment in the development of the Athabasca tar sands and, if so, what conditions have been attached to such development?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there were no negotiations on this particular investment. The subject of Japanese investment in Canada and the various ways in which we would welcome that investment was, of course, discussed and so set out in broad terms within the economic framework that was signed by the Prime Minister of Japan and myself.


GOVERNMENT ATTITUDE TOWARDS FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder whether the Prime Minister can clarify in general terms if his government has altered its policy with regard to general investment and now welcomes foreign investment in particular as far as tar sands development is concerned.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there would be no alteration of our policy on foreign investment if we were to welcome it. We always have welcomed it. We indicated that we welcome it only if it provides substantial benefit to Canadian citizens. I am sure that is a point of view the hon. member would agree with.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, of the Hon. Bryce Stuart Mackasey, P.C., member for the electoral district of Verdun, by resignation. Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.
October 28, 1976

before, that all the necessary precautions are being taken. As I indicated, the Commissioner of Penitentiaries is in touch with the local people, and I believe with a reporter from the Canadian broadcasting system as well as a lawyer from Moncton who are acting as negotiators.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. The minister has informed the fishing industry, I believe as of October 4, that action has been taken to close the redfish fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This poses two questions. First, is the redfish fishery closed to everyone, including boats under 100 feet in length; second, in view of the wasted by-catch of small, immature redfish by shrimp fishermen in the gulf, which is reported to be as high as 50 per cent of the catch by some fishermen, has the minister any plan to prevent the continued destruction of this species?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the redfish quota for the gulf was taken and therefore the fishery had to be closed; otherwise there would have been no quota left for next year. One of the problems with this fishery is that this fish matures in 12 to 15 years; therefore it is a rather long replacement stock.
The other question raised by the hon. member, a very serious one, was about the incidental catch in the pursuit of the shrimp fishery. Experimental fishing has been done this summer and the reports I have received verbally from my regional director in Halifax indicate that it is not very conclusive or promising. However, we are assessing the situation to see whether we can improve the technique.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE PRIME MINISTER OF JAMAICA
Mr. Speaker:: Before continuing, might 1 borrow a moment from the question period to signal the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor in the person of the Prime Minister of Jamaica, the Hon. Michael Manley.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FUNGICIDAL EBDC CHEMICALS-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM HARMFUL EFFECTS
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like
Oral Questions
to express my sincere sympathy to the minister on the recent loss of his mother, Madame Laura Lalonde.
With regard to the indirect but serious toxic effects of the fungicidal EBDC chemicals, reportedly causing cancer and fetal abnormalities in research animals, does the department consider the attempted disposal of affected food to be adequate public protection, or would it consider a complete ban on this family of agricultural chemicals, including agreements with other countries on imported foods?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there has been an extensive research program carried on on this particular subject by federal and provincial agencies and these results are being evaluated at the present time. When the evaluation is completed we will decide on which of various alternatives to take. This could include a complete ban, or it could include additional tolerance restrictions which we might impose. We have already imposed some further tolerance restrictions but these might be even further restricted. Again, the use of EBDC's could also be restricted to certain crops. We have not made a final decision yet as to which of these alternatives will be retained.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Jake Epp (Proveneher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's return from the land of the rising sun I should like to ask the Prime Minister, having had time to give serious consideration to the lack of representation in the Cabinet from Manitoba, whether he would announce a Cabinet appointment from Manitoba before the sun sets completely on the Liberal party of Manitoba?


AGRICULTURE
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
The minister stated yesterday that the Canadian Dairy Commission does not set any value on milk quotas. In order to prevent the Federation of Milk Producers from being tempted to have those quotas paid by their members, would the minister consider compensating producers forced to sell their herd as a result of a 20 per cent reduction, according to the value of lost quotas? We would thus avoid this race for quotas which we have unfortunately known in the past years?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the program that we announced just recently should overcome

October 28, 1976
Oral Questions
the statement that in the first six months of this calendar year companies exceeded the income guidelines to the extent of some $70 million, can the minister tell us how many companies were involved, what action the government proposes to take to deal with those companies and whether or not he will undertake to ensure that the AIB does not allow those companies to remain in anonymity as is the case with 19 companies which exceeded the guidelines to the extent of $3,300,000? There is no reason at all why all the companies ought not to be named. The public has a right to know which companies have exceeded the guidelines. The Anti-Inflation Board has no reservations at all about giving the names of unions and employers who in its opinion have exceeded the guidelines.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: What the hon. gentleman is saying, in effect, is that even though someone has abided by the law he should be punished anyway. This seems to be a new and interesting doctrine to be advocated in a democratic country. With regard to those cases where quarterly examination of company reports has indicated that there may be excess revenue on the year, this has been drawn to the attention of the firms concerned and they are being required to govern their pricing policies in such a way that excess revenue should not be produced. Of course, whether or not there is excess revenue has to be determined on the basis of revenue over the whole year and this will be done at the close of the year when a figure can be arrived at.
With regard to reporting, I would remind the hon. member again of the requirements of the law passed by parliament in terms of the publication of confidential information with which the Board is naturally complying.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I ask
the minister a question with reference to the 96 companies who reported for the last two and a half months of last year, so that is final? Does he consider that an undertaking to reduce profits in the future constitutes the recovery of moneys which they took from the consumers of this country in excess of the guidelines laid down by the Anti-Inflation Board?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Board has several options under the law. It can recover the money on behalf of the public treasury, a course which would not necessarily do the consumer any good at all. It seems to me to make far more sense either to require the company to hold its prices down or to reduce its prices in order that the consumer would have the benefit of those lower prices. That is the purpose of the program.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister or for the Acting Solicitor General on a subject which was probably considered at this morning's cabinet meeting-if it was not, it should have been. It is a subject of deep concern to the hon. member for Cumberland-Colches-ter North. I should like to ask what the current situation is with respect to the hostage-taking incident at Dorchester

Penitentiary, the degree of danger to the life of the guard and what steps the government is taking to bring an end to any such danger, should it exist, and it likely does.


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: I am advised that the minister and the Commissioner of Penitentiaries have been in touch with the regional office for the area in which Dorchester Prison is located. I believe it would be inadvisable at this time for me to comment on the status of the situation in view of the fact that negotiations and discussions are going on. But I can assure the hon. member that we are taking all necessary precautions.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO DEAL WITH HOSTAGE-TAKING
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister, not to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, so that we in this House might have some understanding of what really lies behind statements which are made by ministers of the Crown, whether there is any real connection between what the Solicitor General said prior to the taking of the hostage at Dorchester Penitentiary in relation to the hard line he outlined as being the intention to take in connection with any hostage dramas which might take place at the penitentiaries. We have seen a proliferation of hostage dramas across the country and unless we are more realistic about handling them we shall see more and more. What does the government propose to do to indicate to inmates in penal institutions that by taking knives and putting them at the throats of guards they are not going to get all kinds of concessions, such as television time and all the rest, for the inmates in those institutions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand the hon. member is making a representation. I shall make sure it is drawn to the attention of the Solicitor General.


DORCHESTER-FREEDOM OF ACTION FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS TO DEAL WITH HOSTAGE-TAKING INCIDENT
Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question based on one of the findings and recommendations of the inquiry by Mr. Justice Farris into the hostage-taking incident at the B.C. Penitentiary in which Miss Steinhauser was killed. One of the recommendations was that the situation be controlled at the local level by the administration and that the government have the confidence in their administration to permit that. That was not done with the B.C. incident and contributed to Miss Steinhauser's death. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the incident now taking place in Dorchester is being controlled on the spot by those best able to deal with the situation minute by minute, rather than being controlled in Ottawa and the administration at Dorchester having to seek clearance for everything that they do at the Ottawa level?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the hon. member, as I stated
October 28, 1976

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I took great pains in explaining to the private as well as the public sectors in Japan that we have no intention of parting with our raw materials unconditionally. Quite the opposite is true: while the Japanese were interested in getting the assurance we would supply them with raw materials, we were eager to discuss guaranteed markets. The debate was pursued rather in that vein.


TEXTILES-INQUIRY IF PRIME MINISTER DISCUSSED QUOTAS WITH JAPAN
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary.
Considering the importance of the textile industry, particularly in Quebec, did the Prime Minister mention the problem of Japanese textile exports to Canada during the discussions which were held in Tokyo? Did he request and obtain the assurance that Japan will fully respect its quotas, thus avoiding further disturbance of the domestic market by shipping to Canada goods directly competing with the Canadian industry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this question was raised along with the general discussions held within the frame work of GATT but the trouble the hon. member is complaining about does not come from Japan but mostly from other countries. Japan has on the whole complied with the quotas that we have set and our problems are due mostly to other eastern countries.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Will the minister take under immediate and serious consideration whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in his capacity as a member of this House, should be personally charged with the expense involved in the preparation, printing, publishing and distribution of a blatantly political press release relating to a purely partisan speech made by the minister in Montreal on Tuesday last. This press release contains not one word about the activities or policies of his department, but was printed and distributed by public servants. On this side of the House, such a publication would be put out under the auspices of our political party and I believe the Liberal Party has even more funds for that purpose. Does the minister not believe that moneys voted by this House for the information services of the Department of National Health and Welfare should not be wasted or misused for such blatant political purposes?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: I note the hon. member's vehemence and his political comments and, I suspect there would be very little to them. But I will take the question as notice.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Would the hon. gentleman request that the Liberal Party of Canada reimburse the public treasury since obvious political references to the Liberal Party were made in the very expensive paper called "A working paper: The Way Ahead-A framework for discussion"? I refer the President of the Treasury Board to the obvious partisan references in that presentation.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD   REASON NO ATTEMPT MADE TO RECOVER EXCESS PROFITS FROM CORPORATIONS AND NO REPORT TO ADMINISTRATOR
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance regarding the release by the Anti-Inflation Board of information to the effect that 96 companies have exceeded the income guidelines by a total amount in excess of $9 million. In view of the fact that employers and employees who have exceeded the guidelines have been reported to the Administrator with the result that moneys have been recovered and fines imposed, 1 ask the minister why none of the 96 companies have been reported to the Administrator and why there has been no attempt to recover the $9 million, apart from some nebulous commitment to lower prices so as to avoid excess income in the future.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In the
case of the firms against which the Administrator has made orders, I might point out that those are firms which either refused to comply with the judgment of the Anti-Inflation Board or specifically requested that the matter be referred to the Administrator so that an order could be made against them. In those cases, because they had either refused to comply with the judgment of the Anti-Inflation Board or sought to have the order made, they were declared to be in violation of the law. The violation is in refusing to comply, not in the initial excess.
In the case of the companies in question, the Board has, by negotiation, arranged compliance programs under which excess funds would, in appropriate cases, be returned to the consumer in the form of lower prices or the freezing of prices until excess costs had used up the profit. In those cases, the companies had co-operated with the Board and no reference to the Administrator was therefore required.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENSURE COMPANIES EXCEEDING PROFIT GUIDELINES NAMED AND EXCESS PROFIT RECOVERED
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am
sure the tender touch with which the companies have been dealt with will not escape most observers. With reference to

October 28, 1976
Oral Questions
way or the other that the Act is going to be passed, the amendments which are going to be made, and then give effect to the direct employment strategy program.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I would first like to welcome him back to the House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: -and tell him that in his absence three more of his members slipped away and more are expected to follow their example.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: As the government's answer to unemployment, as given to the House last Thursday by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, is a combination of a make-work program and all employees in a plant going on short time as opposed to a plant layoff, will the Prime Minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what plans the government has for making our products, particularly our manufactured products which provide the jobs, more competitive in the international market and so able to provide more jobs of a lasting nature as opposed to the make-work type envisaged by the government in its latest program.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will try to sort out the chaff from the wheat of the hon. member's question and give it serious consideration.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, 1 will make it very simple because the Prime Minister is probably a little tired and can handle just so much at one time. Has the government specifically given consideration to lowering taxes on manufactured products sold in the export market as a means of making them more competitive, able to sell in greater quantity and to provide more jobs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to discuss this with the Minister of Finance, but it is not clear if the hon. member is suggesting that we lower the tax just for goods as they cross the border for export and not lower them for Canadians. If this is his suggestion, it certainly worries me a little bit.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works.
In the last eighteen months, the five bridges across the Ottawa River have been systematically blocked, completely or partially, because of a total lack of previous agreement between the authorities of the National Capital Commission and the Department of Public Works who are responsible for the renovation and maintenance of those bridges.

Does the minister intend to set up a co-ordinating committee to bring to an end the indignation, frustration and mounting irritation of 60 per cent of the western Quebec work force which must cross the Ottawa River twice daily to and from their jobs or does he intend to once and for all pave the Ottawa River in order to unite both sides?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the latter thought may be very sound, but I think the one prior makes better sense and I would be happy to look into
it.


ALLEGED GUARANTEE TO JAPAN OF SOURCE OF RAW MATERIALS-POSSIBILITY OF SAME GUARANTEE TO COMMON MARKET
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
While I welcome him back with joy, might I be allowed to mention also just how much we appreciated the charm and graciousness with which Mrs. Trudeau represented us in the land of the rising sun.
Mr. Speaker, according to news releases coming in from Tokyo, the right hon. Prime Minister would have guaranteed the Japanese industry secure supplies of raw materials from Canada. As a similar assurance could not be given the industrialists of the European Common Market, has the right hon. Prime Minister or some member or other of his cabinet obtained from the Canadian provinces the assurance that this guarantee will be respected and, if so, what raw materials are we speaking of and which provinces were consulted in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has in fact read those reports in a newspaper, I can tell him unequivocally that the paper reported very inaccurately what happened in Japan.

October 28, 1976

few months. I wish to direct my final supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since he is absent, may I direct it to the parliamentary secretary? Given the fact that Reed Paper Company has applied to DREE for a grant to finance a sawmill and kraft pulp mill operation at Red Lake and Ear Falls, both locations being in the disputed area, and in light of assurances of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that all treaty rights and obligations would be respected by this government, will the minister, or the parliamentary secretary, guarantee that Reed's application will be suspended until land claims and native peoples' rights have been fairly and thoroughly dealt with?


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's question as notice.


HOUSING
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for Urban Affairs.
Considering that the conditions made available at the present time by the government do not make the purchase of a house financially interesting and that the interest rates on loans offered by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are really too high, could the minister inform the House whether he would be prepared to recommend that the mortgage interest paid by a Canadian taxpayer on the purchase of his first house be deductible from his personal income tax?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, no. I would indicate to the hon. member that the rate paid by purchasers of moderately priced homes in Quebec and elsewhere in the country is equivalent to 8 per cent. These programs, through the lending of the private sector which is assisted by the federal government, have already increased this year by some 80 per cent. We expect close to a record year for housing starts and sales of units to those with low and moderate incomes. Indeed, the programs are successful and working more effectively than others anywhere in the world.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the government's proposals to change the UIC Act, it appears that certain provinces are concerned about losses which they may incur in benefits and they now seek
Oral Questions
compensation one way or another, because of the possibility that they may need to add moneys to their own provincial programs. Have any provinces indicated this to the minister in terms of compensation and how does he intend to deal with this matter?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I believe some provinces in the Atlantic area have expressed concern about the possible loss of the revenue that would come to the unemployed as a result of moving, for example, from the eight week to the 12 week period. Some of them suggested that funds lost in that way might be turned over to the provinces. However, I am satisfied that our direct employment policy, aimed as it will be at areas of high unemployment, will more than compensate for the funds it will require.


MANPOWER
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister indicated that this employment strategy which has recently been introduced will require consultation with the provinces. Can the minister now advise when this consultation process will be completed? Also, can he advise whether he will be able to implement this strategy, particularly the Canada works end of it, prior to April 1977?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, one of the first initiatives I took was to meet with the ministers in the various provinces who have responsibility for labour and education in the proper perspective of Manpower to discuss with them our direct employment strategy policy. I indicated to them the extent of it and that there would in fact be consultation with them. I expect we will commence our discussions with regard to programs on a consultative basis probably early in January 1977 with a view to implementing them in approximately April of that year.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Commission Act are part and parcel in terms of the employment strategy and because of the necessity that there be consultation in order that there shall be no inequities, can the minister now assure the House that amendments to the UIC Act will not be brought forward until such time as the consultation process has been terminated? Can he assure the House of this?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, Mr. Speaker. I think it is proper that we know one

October 28, 1976
Oral Questions
think the hon. member is not very well advised to accuse me of trying to play politics about that.
I will not go as far as to say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that in view of the program he established to become leader of his party, I should have accused him of stealing my policy in order to gain the leadership.


POSSIBILITY MOVING VETERANS AFFAIRS TO CHARLOTTETOWN TRADE-OFF FOR DEFENCE BASE AT SUMMERSIDE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no official announcement with respect to this important move and no clarification as to which minister is responsible. However, reports indicate some trade-off could have been made by the government with respect to the establishment of one federal department in Prince Edward Island and with respect to the loss of a major part of a defence establishment, also in Prince Edward Island, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if there have been conversations with the premier of Prince Edward Island or his officials about a possible tradeoff. If there were not, can the Prime Minister give an assurance to this House that the federal government has not given consideration to either removing or substantially reducing the defence establishment at Canadian Forces Base, Summerside?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce made it very clear that he is the minister responsible for this stage of our decentralization policy. I should add that he is a very able minister.


An hon. Member:: He is resigning next week.


An hon. Member:: He is going to run in Quebec.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member asks me if there is to be a trade-off as a result of this decentralization. I would say there is no truth to that at all and I am surprised that the rumour exists, unless it is the pure invention of the hon. member. I would think, as a member from Prince Edward Island, he would be thanking us for this.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have learned from long experience, Mr. Speaker, never to thank this government for anything. The possibility of a trade-off is on the front page of this afternoon's newspaper. If it is not true, I would think the Prime Minister would want to clear the air and say that there have never been any conversations as reported on the front page of this afternoon's newspaper. In addition. I would think he would want to give concrete assurance to the people of Prince Edward Island in view of the importance that he and I both know CFB Summerside represents to the economy of Prince Edward Island. I would hope the Prime Minister would give that clear assurance in order to dispel the fears that are reported in today's media.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly give that assurance. Neither the minister responsible for decentralization nor I, myself, have spoken to Mr. Campbell, the premier of Prince Edward Island, about this matter. As far as I am concerned, if what the hon. member says he read in the newspaper is actually in the newspaper, it is a lie.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Given the fact that the federal government has funded Grand Council Treaty No. 9 in northern Ontario for research work on and preparation of land claims in that area, and in light of the fact that these claims include the 18,000 square miles of land which Reed Paper Company is attempting to secure from the government of Ontario, will the minister assure this House that until all native peoples land claims are settled, any land transfer by the Ontario government will be opposed by the federal government?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that at this time, but wish to inform the hon. member that officials of my department will meet the chiefs of Grand Council Treaty No. 9 tomorrow, in Toronto, to discuss what we might do together to resolve difficulties resulting from that licence.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the native peoples can take much solace from the minister's answer. May I ask the minister the following supplementary question: In view of the admission of the minister in the House yesterday, that his predecessor had consulted with the Ontario government concerning the proposed land transfer to Reed, can the minister explain why his department, at the very time it was funding Indian land claims research in the area, did not have the common decency to inform the native people of the area of the plans of Reed Paper and the Ontario government?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member says, the Indians in the area would like us to discuss solutions with them before we go firing off on our own, as suggested by the hon. member. That is what we are going to do tomorrow. We will discuss any solutions to the problem with them, rather than listening to the hon. member.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, the point is that the native people have been kept in the dark for the past
October 28, 1976

demands an immediate end to this misuse of public servants designed to assist in maintaining the Liberal party in power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented to the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. 1 should like to preface it by expressing the pleasure of my party at the fact that the government is acting on decentralization of the functions of the public service in the country. I would like the minister to confirm that there will be a major policy announcement regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs and public servants employed by that department made outside this House immediately after question period ends today.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that question should more properly be addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am still responsible for the federal government decentralization program, and I am glad to see that the Leader of the Opposition maintains the stand he had himself included in his program. I hope he will speak to his neighbour right across from me and to his other neighbour as well, for I am sure the member for Saint-Hyacinthe agrees with that decentralization policy. This afternoon, the Minister of Veterans Affairs is to make a statement in Charlottetown because I think this is the most appropriate place to make it at this time, since this is a place which really needs the help of the federal government.
As to the policy itself, I have already made statements and speeches about it in the House. If anybody wants me to make another statement, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do so, and I would then quote statements of policy the member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) made when he ran for the leadership of his party.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: I think in passing it might be helpful if the Prime Minister would indicate to the House just what minister has responsibility for what functions and who carried what in the most recent shuffle.
I would like also to indicate to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that it is not on this side of the House that there are disagreements which cause ministers to resign.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question relates to an elaboration of the policy statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in his former capacity, and assuming that there were factors involved in this particular decision other than the four provincial by-elections in which the Liberal Party is in trouble in Prince Edward Island, and I wonder if the minister might tell us when we can expect, on motions, a full statement which will not deal with the generality of the principle of decentralization, but will instead tell us precisely what guarantees of consultation there will be with public servants and with other groups involved, and when we can have an indication of the master plan, which we presume exists, indicating the other departments which are now being considered for decentralization and the other parts of Canada to which it is intended to decentralize.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we consult provincial governments. Every time the unions concerned were consulted, I myself stated that I thought, as it had been noted by the opposition last year, that decentralization was one of the government's priorities. If I have to repeat my speech I shall do so, or else send a copy to the hon. member. In any event I believe the program is continuing. The Prime Minister was kind enough to ask me to pursue the program I had launched a year ago. Progress is being made and I shall be pleased to inform the House more fully in the coming weeks, because I see that some members have a short memory which needs to be refreshed.


Charles Joseph Clark: I think we on this side of the House can survive without a repetition of the minister's speech, but we would like to have an indication from the government of precisely what plans are in place now regarding which aspects of which other departments are going to be moved to what other locations in Canada, and we would like to have that as soon as possible so that we and the people of Canada can have some assurance that this is in fact following some general plan and that it is not in response to political emergencies the Liberal Party faces in particular parts of the country.
[Translation\


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is aware of it, I can remind him that we decentralized some organizations in Vancouver, Winnipeg, in the province of Quebec, in Newfoundland, in Moncton, in St. John's, Newfoundland, and I

October 28, 1976
Transport


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of extreme urgency and pressing necessity so far as the employees of the Canadian National in the Atlantic region are concerned.
In view of the fact that the CN is continuing a policy of cut-backs and lay-offs of their employees, affecting trainmen, engineers, telegraphers, CN police, customer relations officers and CN-CP Telecommunication employees with many years of service without due and timely, or indeed decent notice, causing great hardship to these employees and their families, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colches-ter North:
That the Minister of Transport cause an immediate investigation to be carried out into the operations of the Canadian National Railways in the Atlantic region to determine why these employees with so many years service are being treated in such a cruel and callous manner by this Crown corporation when, at the same time, the throne speech pays lip service to job creation in regions of chronic unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented to the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
this House and the British Columbia public can engage in an open and accurate discussion of the alternatives available.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be presented with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the International Joint Commission has been granted an extension to June 1977 to complete its report on the Garrison Diversion Project of North Dakota, and recognizing that $23.5 million for next year's construction has already been appropriated by Congress, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the House direct the Prime Minister to request the government of the United States to immediately stop all construction of the Garrison diversion until the International Joint Commission has completed and presented its final report.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. It concerns the end of the subsidy to Northland Navigation on the Pacific coast which is to come about in three days. Given the fact that the west coast transport subsidy to Northland Navigation in Vancouver will be ended, thus cutting off effective communication for 16 northwest British Columbia communities with the loss of hundreds of jobs in an area of high unemployment, and that this action is being taken with the minister's knowledge that an in-house study prepared for the Canadian Transport Commission asserts that an up-grading of existing equipment and service could lead to a quick phasing out of existing subsidies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Transport extend the existing subsidy for a further year and immediately make public the CTC report in question so that the members of


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, this is of urgent and pressing necessity arising from a secret decision of the Unemployment Insurance Commission's national executive to institute fingerprinting and investigating in detail of the personal backgrounds of hundreds of UIC employees and subsequent and recent consequences and implications of March 1976 documents classified confidential signed by D. R. Brown, Ontario UIC director general, and Robert Vantangerloo, Ontario regional personnel adviser. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the House condemns as constituting gross manipulation and interference of the public service for political purposes the reasons for this plan as stated in Robert Vantangerloo's classified document that: "it is intended to prevent passing of confidential information to groups with an interest in embarrassing or otherwise damaging the Canadian government..." and finally the House

Thursday, October 28, 1976