1976-04-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since we have now witnessed the sixth hostage drama at British Columbia Penitentiary in just over 14 months and again the establishment of a meaningless in-house inquiry into the incident, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House instruct the Solicitor General to immediately table the report of the Farris Inquiry and to establish an independent investigation into what is obviously an explosive situation at the B.C. Penitentiary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SERVICES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Last December, I questioned the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) on the government's intentions with respect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women dealing with daycare. Since that recommendation has still not been implemented, and since the lack of adequate daycare facilities continues to be a serious concern all across Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House instructs the government to implement within 12 months the recommendation that the federal government contribute on a cost-sharing basis with the provinces in the capital costs for the
establishment of daycare facilities and not simply contribute to maintenance costs once they are established.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the numerous questions about public propriety that affect trust in government and reflect, indeed, on all of us in public life, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That the Prime Minister take all necessary steps to arrange to appoint a judicial inquiry into tendering procedures at Dorval and Mirabel airports, with reference to contracts involving leases, concessions and construction projects, excluding therefrom, however, those matters involving Sky Shops during such time as they remain sub judice of our criminal courts.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in asking the House to agree to this motion under Standing Order 43, I make the point that it does not call for action overnight. However, it does stress the urgency of a commitment being made now with regard to an important matter. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government to bring in legislation that will establish pension rights for homemaker spouses equivalent to the rights of those employed outside the home, and that the government commit

April 26, 1976
External Affairs
itself to the taking of this action during the life of the present parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House before the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On December 17, 1975 and again on February 5, 1976, the leader of the New Democratic Party raised in this House the question of the widening gap between women's and men's incomes and urged that the provision in the anti-inflation program for an exemption from the general guidelines to ensure the achievement of equality of the sexes with regard to income be made mandatory instead of optional.
Since the government has failed to take such action and since women in the Canadian labour force continue to be discriminated against in terms of their incomes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the government to take steps to implement on a mandatory basis the permissive clause in the anti-inflation program relating to the elimination of sex discrimination in pay practices.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
For some months now in the New York Times, as well as New York Review of Books, and recently in Time magazine, April 19, 1976 edition, it has been estimated that since the Communist victory in Cambodia last year, one half million Cambodians, or one tenth of the population, have died from political reprisals, disease or starvation under the Khmer Rouge.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That Canada's External Affairs Department bring this matter before the United Nations for open discussion.


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


Some hon. Members:: No!


EXPERIMENTAL BILINGUAL EDITION OF &quot;VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS&quot;
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will notice that a bilingual edition of Votes and Proceedings has been placed on their desks in addition to the regular English and French editions. This arrangement will continue for the balance of the session to enable hon. members to make their comments to the Chair as to the suitability and usefulness of the combined version.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister assure the House there were no unusual circumstances and excessive lobbying involved in the tendering process, the evaluation of bids and the eventual awarding to Les Entreprises Cara (Quebec) Limitee of a lease to operate the food and beverage concession at Mirabel Airport? In other words, can he assure us that standard procedures according to established government policy were followed throughout?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is nothing at all to indicate that anything but the standard procedure was followed. If the hon. member has any information to the contrary I would be delighted to receive it.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That being the case, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he is aware of the circumstances surrounding a telephone conversation made a couple of hours prior to the time scheduled for the opening of tenders for this concession wherein Mr. Boyd Matchett, the president of Cara, called Mr. Gerry Stoner, the then Deputy Minister of Transport, to inform him about departures from normal tender-opening procedures which Mr. Matchett discovered upon his early arrival for the opening of bids and which Mr. Stoner had to over-rule very precipitously?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such call.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Would the minister, after he has looked into these things and acquainted himself with the circum-
April 26, 1976

stances, explain to the House how it was that because of alleged great pressure which was then exerted on the then minister of transport, Mr. Stoner, the Deputy Minister, suggested to Mr. Matchett some time after the tenders were opened that he should explore a merger with Kebec Restaurants Limited and how it was that when Mr. Matchett did this, Mr. Bellehumeur of Kebec Restaurants suggested that Cara withdraw its higher tender and that these companies work together on the basis of the lower bid submitted by Kebec Restaurants, a proposal which Mr. Matchett very properly refused to consider?


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member knows full well that I do investigate any matters which are brought to my attention and I would have appreciated it had he brought these matters to my notice.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.
As weekend newspapers reported that the Minister of the Environment had admitted making, at the time when he was the Prime Minister's Quebec lieutenant, thousands of recommendations with regard to the adjudication of contracts, can he tell the House whether, among those countless recommendations he made, he might not have made specific ones with regard to "Les Entreprises Cara Quebec Ltee" and "Quebec Restaurant A.F.C. Ltee"?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in all cases, I followed standard procedures observed by the department concerned. In the case of public tenders, I did not intervene. In cases where there are no tenders, I received recommendations, I made some in turn, and I even received some from my hon. friend from Joliette.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Since the minister confirms that he made recommendations for public information would he be willing to table a list of his recommendations and say what were the results?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it will be necessary to draw up the list and mention the recommendations made by the members of all parties in this House. I must say that I got some from every party. Moreover, I find this perfectly right. When the member for Joliette asked me if it would be possible to obtain grants for his constituency, I found his representations fair and I do not blame him for doing so.


Roch La Salle: One last supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When I said recommendations I hope the minister understood that I was referring to companies and contracts.
I would like to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Considering that the Minister of the
Oral Questions
Environment was at one time the lieutenant of the present Prime Minister and that he had to make hundreds of recommendations concerning the granting of contracts, are we to understand that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), in his quality of Quebec lieutenant, is now responsible for these recommendations?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, when there are several members of parliament or several ministers in one province, it has happened and it still often happens that I ask some ministers to come together with a recommendation. This is so in the province of Quebec, this is so in the other provinces, and it was so when the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) was Prime Minister.


LETTER FROM CARMEL CARRIERE CONCERNING SKY SHOPS LEASE-MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has asked the Minister of the Environment if he had knowledge of a letter written in October, 1971 by his then executive assistant, Carmel Carriere, to the then executive assistant to the Minister of Transport concerning the removal of competitive bidding for the Sky Shops lease and, if so, would the Prime Minister tell the House what the minister's answer was and was he, the Prime Minister, satisfied with it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall that any such letter had to do with the removal of competitive bidding, but it has been alleged publicly that such a letter was written by Miss Carmel Carriere. I knew of it and I discussed it with the minister, but I do not believe that the subject of removal of competitive bidding was in the letter I am speaking of.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The last part of my question was not answered by the Prime Minister and I should like him to do so now, if he would. Was he satisfied in every way with the answer he received from the minister concerning that letter? Secondly, would he tell the House whether he has asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the then Minister of Transport, if he was aware of the letter that had been sent by Carmel Carriere, did he discuss that matter with this minister as well, and was he satisfied with the answer that he received from that minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes in both cases and on both subjects. The present Minister of the Environment made it quite clear, and I stated in the House, that he became aware of that letter after it had been discussed publicly, but he did not know of the existence of that letter at the time.


POSSIBILITY TREASURY BOARD CONSULTED ON RENEWAL OF SKY SHOPS LEASE
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister advise the House whether or not Treasury Board was
12848

April 26, 1976
Oral Questions
advised or consulted regarding the decision to renew the Sky Shops lease; and if advised, did Treasury Board itself make a recommendation in this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the extent to which the Treasury Board was or was not involved. I had in mind an answer given by the present Minister of Transport some weeks ago when he explained the Sky Shops affair and the lease which had originally been granted by the Conservative government back in 1962 and renewed in the normal way. I have asked for further details on this, and whether or not it had gone to the Treasury Board. I have not had that answer. I expect it later today. I did have in mind the rather complete answer given by the Minister of Transport some weeks ago. I cannot remember whether he did mention Treasury Board involvement.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
During the weekend a Liberal party convention took place in Quebec City where Premier Bourassa dealt with three specific points, namely the patriation of the constitution, the Olympic Games and the common front in the province of Quebec.
As far as the constitution is concerned, Mr. Bourassa stated that he represented one fortieth of the total population in America and that he required guarantees by the Prime Minister of Canada before he agrees with the idea of partriating the constitution. Is the right hon. Prime Minister in a position to tell the House whether the guarantees required by Mr. Bourassa have been given to him?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the idea of such guarantees was accepted not only by myself but also by the nine other provincial premiers at the meeting of first ministers in the month of April last when we got together to discuss this among other things. This was explained quite clearly in a letter tabled in the House before the Easter recess.
In brief, everyone is prepared to give guarantees so the French fact, so the French language may continue to exist on an equal basis in this country. That is the policy of the federal government, and of all parties in the House. There is no question about that. It is on the wording itself of a guarantee that there has been no agreement thus far. The hon. member no doubt learned from the papers tabled in the House that the federal government made an effort together with the province of Quebec to draft such a guarantee. Now, if the premier of the province of Quebec wants other formulas, or other clauses, I think it would be up to him to come up with proposals, otherwise he is asking in theory for something that was already given in theory.


OLYMPIC GAMES
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
About the constitution, as far as I was able to see last night, the premier of Quebec has not yet understood, but nevertheless he suggested that yesterday the President of the Treasury Board was meeting provincial Finance Minister Garneau about the Olympics and that an agreement was about to be passed whereby Ottawa would come to the help of the Montreal Olympic Organizing Committee which forecasts a very great deficit. Did the government suggest or propose to the federal government any assistance to fill that deficit that will occur in Montreal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government on that has not changed for the last two years, and has still not changed in the past month. We supported the systems of self-financing from the start. I said on several occasions in the past two years that we would look at any reasonable system of selffinancing. I said in answer to the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont recently that that was still the position of the federal government.
I strongly refused and still refuse that money be taken out of the federal treasury to cover a deficit incurred by the Olympic Games Organization Committee, the city of Montreal or the province of Quebec, as regards the Olympic Games. This position remains unchanged. I think that the province of Quebec now understands such view and, if I am well informed, it is considering self-financing propositions, and that will be the end of those stories to the effect that the federal treasury will help make up the deficit incurred.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a final supplementary question.
A moment ago, I pointed out three facts. However, there are rumours about the rather delicate situation existing in the province of Quebec between the common front and the government, that is to say against the Quebec government's authority. Is it true that Mr. Bourassa asked for federal government assistance in case the army is required if ever the situation worsens between the common front and the Quebec government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, such a request was certainly not submitted, at least not to my office because I would be aware of it.
April 26, 1976


TRANSPORT
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In light of the information raised today by the hon. member for Central Nova and the indication by the Minister of the Environment in Macleans Magazine that his duties as Quebec leader involved the making of thousands of recommendations for contracts and so forth, is the Prime Minister now prepared to establish a judicial inquiry into the tendering procedures of the Ministry of Transport, specifically excluding those aspects of the so-called Sky Shops affair now before the courts, but including the role of ministers' offices within the general tendering procedure.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister made it quite clear that when there is a tendering procedure he does not intervene to make any recommendation. That was quite clear from the answer he gave a moment ago. When there is no tendering procedure and there has to be a choice made between a group of architects, lawyers or engineers, the minister follows the same procedure which has been followed by the previous government, and by governments before that, of rather than letting the civil service make the choice the ministers themselves make the choice and recommend one officer or one series of operators.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Prime Minister's answer is that he will not now call a judicial inquiry into this question concerning the participation by ministers or ministers' offices in the tendering procedures of the Ministry of Transport or generally. To be clear on this, is the Prime Minister telling the House that after the inquiry he has made privately, he is satisfied there is no irregularity in the tendering procedure of the Ministry of Transport, and particularly that there has been no involvement by representatives of offices of the ministers of the Crown in the tendering procedure? I make the point, offices as well as ministers themselves. Is he satisfied as to that effect and is that the reason he declines to establish a judicial inquiry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that, generally, I am satisfied that is the situation. If there are particular cases which come to light in the case of the government or the opposition, they of course should be pointed out to the police who in this particular case have made an investigation. There is obviously a possibility of human fallacy. When such a thing is discovered in every case to my knowledge it is handled by the RCMP and investigation follows. I think this is the proper procedure.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, so that I might be clear, the Prime Minister has ruled out the possibility of a judicial inquiry into the tendering practices or procedures in the Ministry of Transport or the involvement of ministers or offices of the ministers. Is that the case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have ruled it out on the basis that so far as we know or so far as the opposition seems to know there has been no system of irregularities.
Oral Questions
There has been one case which has been doubtful, which is being investigated and indeed is before the courts. Of course, if it came to light that there was a system or a pattern of irregularities, I think the answer might be completely different.


Mr. Horner:: Are you prepared to look for the facts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the opposition has knowledge of such a thing existing under my government or under any previous government we would gladly look into it.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. In light of the absence of the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice. Would the Prime Minister tell the House and the country what steps his government has taken or will be taking to ensure that the RCMP, for which the Solicitor General is responsible to Parliament, does not become embroiled or involved in jurisdictional conflict which could reflect upon its credibility or apparent effectiveness as a national force. He often refers to them and says that the police are looking into this or that. If they are going to be an effective force, they should be above that kind of dispute.
[DOT] (M30)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I agree that they should be above that kind of dispute. It appears that in the course of the past week there has been a dispute which did arise between the authorities in the province of Quebec and the RCMP. I have asked the Solicitor General to look into it and to report to me. It is not a dispute with the government but, I repeat, a dispute about the RCMP having laid charges in one province rather than in another. It is of course within their right to do so and I am naturally interested, as is the hon. member, in finding out the process through which this dispute arose.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact that, as the Prime Minister said, there does seem to be some dispute as to the jurisdiction of the police force, has the government given thought, in light of the recent developments in the Sky Shop matter, to the appropriateness of proceeding under the Senate and House of Commons Act rather than under the Criminal Code, as a result of which there could be no conflict?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure the suggestion will be conveyed to the RCMP, but I must confess that I do not see the relevance of it in this particular proposal. Charges have been laid under the Criminal Code in the way the RCMP decided, and I do not see that the hon. member really complains about their decision. If he does, I will convey his feelings to them.
2 1804-52)4

Oral Questions CRIMINAL CODE


SUGGESTED ELIMINATION OF PRE-ENQUETE PROVISION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Will the right hon. Prime Minister consider an amendment to the Criminal Code to repeal what seems to many of us to be an unjust provision, that of pre-enquete or pre-inquiry which is obviously an outmoded method of dealing with this. Will the government abolish this system?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the suggestion and will discuss it with the Minister of Justice. I think this tradition or this practice has existed for a long while and is still practised in various provinces in exceptional circumstances. I cannot see at first blush why it should be discontinued in special circumstances, but I would be glad to hear the arguments of the hon. member.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Arising out of the information disclosed by the hon. member for Central Nova, does the Prime Minister accept it as a principle in the guidelines that govern the conduct of deputy ministers that such a deputy minister should suggest to a bidder that he enter into a joint venture with a competitor in order to secure a concession or a lease upon which both have bid, and that this shall be done according to terms that are more favourable to one of the bidders?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is referring to a case of which I know nothing and of which apparently the Minister of Transport knows nothing either. If the facts are as stated by the hon. member, there may have been good reasons to do it. We will find out and report to the House.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On March 19 it was reported that the United States delivered a note of concern to the Canadian authorities over the drilling program proposed at that time for the Beaufort Sea. Can the minister advise the House whether that note of concern has now been withdrawn, and can he also advise the House whether the U.S. authorities are now in agreement with the decision to drill in the Beaufort Sea?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer affirmatively to either of these questions. I know that there have been consultations with the government of the United States and they expressed concern about the environmen-
tal effects of such drilling. I believe that a series of technical meetings have been held at which time it was suggested to us that their views be taken into account. Indeed, they were in the decision of the cabinet, but I have not received any additional comment from the government of the U.S. since that decision was announced.


POSSIBLE ABANDONMENT OF REASON FOR ADVOCATING 200 MILE ZONE IN VIEW OF DRILLING IN BEAUFORT SEA
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the position that Canada has taken at the Law of the Sea Conference which was to justify the 200 mile economic zone on the ground that we would require that zone to protect the coastal state ecology, and in view of the risk that the government is now undertaking in the Beaufort sea, have our delegates to the United Nations now been instructed to abandon that as a ground for supporting our 200 mile zone in view of the risk that this country now seems to be willing to take in the 200 mile zone?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was never the view of the Canadian government either at the Law of the Sea conference or elsewhere that economic activities should be prohibited in any such zone and in particular in the Arctic. What we did say, and what we continue to say, is that the highest possible environmental protection should be put in place when such events do take place, and that is certainly the effort that was made by cabinet in making its decision.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question. Would the minister advise the House whether it was his recommendation to proceed with the drilling in the Beaufort sea and, secondly, in view of his answer that the highest technology should be available to justify our position, is it his position now that the highest technology is available to clean up a blow-out in that sea?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I regret that I cannot oblige the hon. member and tell him what transpired in the cabinet, and therefore his supplementary questions are not applicable.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. I assume from the answer which the minister gave to the questions posed by the hon. member for Central Nova that an investigation will be carried out into the matters which have been advanced by the hon. member. While the minister is checking into the circumstances of this tendering procedure and subsequent events, would he also report on the rules relating to the opening of tender bids publicly as opposed to private bids as well as find out who authorized that course of action which Mr. Stoner found it necessary to over-rule, and also would he report on what steps Mr. Stoner took and whom he contacted to rectify that which Mr. Matchett found unacceptable?
April 26, 1976

Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, certainly the hon. member can be assured that the ordinary procedures are followed carefully with regard to the opening of public tenders. I have given his colleague the indication that I will look into these matters. I do not think there is much point in further speculating on what did happen as the result of a phone call which cancelled another phone call. But I will look into the matter.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Since the Treasury Board, under the provisions of the Financial Administration Act, has over-all authority in the management of Canada's financial affairs which includes among other things the matter of leases, the provision and use of facilities and rentals, etc., is the minister satisfied with the current practices and procedures, and can he indicate to the House whether he is considering undertaking a comprehensive review of current practices so that we might hopefully restore public confidence in this part of the government's activities?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, whenever a problem such as this one is brought to the attention of the Treasury Board, we consider it and try to give the best possible ruling. However, we are always on the lookout for better procedures. This is not always easy but I shall heed the hon. member's suggestion.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Could the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that he and his colleagues will undertake a comprehensive investigation and review of current procedures in light of the Sky Shop affair and in light of the affair which has been brought to light by my colleague, the hon. member for Central Nova today?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there are times when it is absolutely impossible to call for tenders. We try to proceed through tenders as much as possible but there are situations, Mr. Speaker, where we must take our responsibilities, and this cannot be helped. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, when we have decisions to make we assume our responsibilities. One cannot deny that we are politicians. We were elected by the people and in some circumstances we must assume our responsibilities as administrators and politicians at the same time. We cannot separate the two.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. With regard to the special responsibilities he has inherited from the Minister of the Environment as the leader of the federal Quebec party, I should like to ask the minister if he takes direct responsibility for this extra ministerial task or whether to any extent this clearing house is run by his staff.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member realizes that he is not directing a question to the minister in his capacity as Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order at the present time? If the minister or members of the cabinet have on different occasions indicated that they in fact are vetting various contracts within various provinces,-and the answers of the Prime Minister confirmed that contention-and if there is an acknowledged leader of the party in a particular province, seized with that responsibility, it seems to me to be quite legitimate for us to ask that minister questions with respect to those responsibilities, and I ask the indulgence of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be an interesting question to ask, but it is not a legitimate question to ask during the question period.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Prime Minister. On April 13, as recorded at page 12761 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said it was confirmed by the RCMP that they are not recommending that any charges be laid against any minister. Since the questions of propriety and the Pearson code are the responsibility of the Prime Minister and not the RCMP, would the Prime Minister tell the House what kind of investigation, if any, he has undertaken into questions of impropriety by ministers, but perhaps more important, by ministerial aides, which have been raised by the Sky Shops affair, and would he advise the House the full results of these inquiries which have been made by him, if he has made them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the results of the inquiries I made, particularly with regard to the Sky Shops affair, I have reported to the House on previous occasions.
As regards the conduct of ministerial aides in general, I always make it a point, when I am appointing a new minister, to remind him of the responsibility he has to choose the best aides possible, to make sure that they stay

April 26, 1976
Oral Questions
within the limits of their authority, that they do not use the minister's name in vain and that if he has any cause to suspect misconduct, he should get rid of the aide involved. I am not sure if I did in every case, but I have circulated copies of Mr. Pearson's guidelines of 1963 or 1964 regarding aides to the ministers.


Walter David Baker: It is obvious that the Prime Minister is saying that in his judgment the Pearson code does apply to ministerial aides. Given that state of affairs, would the Prime Minister answer the question and tell us whether he will advise the House fully and completely with respect to the conduct of ministerial aides pursuant to the Pearson guidelines in connection with these issues? That is the question which was asked on April 13. We are asking that question again today because we think this is a matter of extreme public importance and that the Prime Minister and his ministers have a duty to this House to answer it fully.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have answered the question with regard to the possible involvement in the Sky Shops affair of any ministerial aides.
With regard to other aspects I repeat that there are general guidelines or enjoinders which exist. Ministers are always cautioned, and they know well enough to caution themselves, against aides who might use their authority unwisely, but by and large, I think it is fair to say that this government and, presumably, previous governments have been well served by the young men and women who come to work for the government for a period of time to do their share for the common weal.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister consider abandoning the procedure of slaughtering cattle herds in the south Okanagan with the disease blue tongue, in view of the fact that many more herds with the disease have been found and that slaughtering may not be the best way of proceeding at this time?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this disease has been brought into Canada by imported cattle. We were free of this disease. We want our herds to remain so. Some of these cattle have been shipped from that area as far east as Ontario, and we are checking those herds at the present time. The only nations which are free of this disease follow the procedure of eradication. I have a complete report from the acting director of health of animals, and recently he met the people in this area and outlined our policy to them. We will continue the eradication program until we rid the nation of the disease.


BLUE TONGUE-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN COMPENSATION FOR SLAUGHTERED CATTLE
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture with regard to blue tongue in herds in the southern Okanagan.


John Edward Broadbent: Tory cows.


George H. Whittaker: In view of the fact that eradication of herds is going ahead-even though blue tongue does not affect the animals-to help some other industries in Canada, would the minister look at the compensation he is giving to ranchers for these animals? The compensation which is being given is market value, and to me this means that it is not costing the government anything. Would the minister consider giving the ranchers proper compensation for these animals?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says this disease does not affect the animals. It certainly does. It causes weak calves to be born, and as far as we are concerned, all the consequences of this disease after it has been in a herd for some time are very questionable. We are considering the compensation. We want to be as fair as possible to these people.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that a recent ruling from the appeal board has established a case of statute law to the effect that a person over 65 years of age who was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits before January 1, 1976 will be able, notwithstanding the new Unemployment Insurance Act, to retain all his rights pursuant to the former legislation, would the minister indicate to the House whether or not people aged 65 or over, whose benefits have been withheld pursuant to the new law on December 31, 1975, will be able henceforth to receive their benefits until they have run out?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is asking me for a legal opinion or a legal interpretation. I am aware of the case to which he refers, and it is being considered. I believe there is an appeal from that decision to a higher authority, and until that appeal is heard I do not think I should made a legal comment.
April 26, 1976


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I understand that it is the intention of the department to carry out tomorrow a deportation order against one Rosie Douglas-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: How did he get here?


Francis Andrew Brewin: -notwithstanding the fact that, as I understand it, there are proceedings pending, or there may be, before the Supreme Court of Canada, and notwithstanding the fact that if he is deported to the Dominican Republic, his future will be at least as hazardous as that of one Quang, who has been ordered to be deported to Viet Nam but who has not been required to leave the country.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that deportation proceedings relating to Mr. Douglas have been under way for some time. He has appealed to the Immigration Appeal Board, to the federal court, to the Supreme Court, back to the Immigration Appeal Board and the federal court, and he may now again be considering some further appeal to the Supreme Court. I am not sure on what grounds, but our instructions are to proceed with the deportation order. As to the second part of the question, I suggest that the premise of the hon. member's comment, about how he would or would not be treated in the country to which he would be returned, is doubtful.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Would the minister explain the difference between a case like this, involving a man who has been accused and convicted of expounding radical opinions, and that of a man like Quang, who has obviously been involved in large scale criminal activities in his own country?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that a deportation order has been brought against Mr. Quang and that inquiries are under way with the government of South Viet Nam to ascertain if they would accept him on return, and under what conditions. When I have that information, I will decide what is to happen about his deportation.


DEPORTATION ORDER AGAINST ROSIE DOUGLAS-INQUIRY IF CONVICTED OF CRIME IN CANADA
Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration if Mr. Douglas was convicted of a crime committed in Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. The conviction was upheld on appeal to the Superior Court.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


SUGGESTION INCREASED FERRY RATES NOT BE PASSED ON TO SHIPPERS
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As the minister's department has granted ferry rate increases of up to 38 per cent and 52 per cent with regard to goods shipped by rail and ferry to Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, will he assure the country that the increase will not be passed on to shippers in Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the increases would be on the rates in the ordinary way, and would be borne accordingly.


INCREASED FERRY RATES-CONSULTATIONS WITH NEWFOUNDLAND AND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the two provinces to be affected by the proposed ferry rate increase already suffer from high unemployment and extraordinarily high inflation rates, and as the rate increase will exacerbate their situation, is the minister prepared to meet with his counterparts in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, before this decision is implemented by CN?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are conscious of the impact of rate increases, especially in this area, and are slow to move on them if they are to take place in areas over which we have jurisdiction. But it is worth observing that the increases are small compared to increases in costs-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is 52 per cent small?


Otto Emil Lang: -which are constantly growing at a rapid rate, and represent a significant investment by the people of Canada in the development of these areas.


PENITENTIARIES
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Solicitor General. In view of the latest hostage taking at B.C. penitentiary this past week end, the sixth in 14 months, why has the government still not produced the Farris inquiry report which was completed several months ago?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, charges are pending against persons involved in the hostage taking, although the murder charge has been stayed. The Farris report will not be released, as the Solicitor General earlier advised the House, until those other charges have been disposed of.

April 26, 1976
Oral Questions


BRITISH COLUMBIA-REASON FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE NUMBER OF GUARDS
John Douglas Reynolds: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. At a March 10 meeting with the Commissioner of Penitentiaries, Dragon Cer-netic, director of British Columbia penitentiary, stated that he requires 205 security positions to maintain adequate supervision over prisoners. Will the Acting Solicitor General explain why Millhaven has 182 security guards for 280 inmates, whereas B.C. penitentiary has only 168 security guards for over 430 inmates?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into the particulars of the facts and provide the hon. member with the information.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Is the Postmaster General aware that another attempt is being made to close the canteen at the Calgary post office on weekends and the midnight "graveyard" shift, notwithstanding the fact that operations at the plant are on a seven-day, 24-hour schedule and the order issued by the Postmaster General on two previous attempts to deny canteen service to some of the postal workers, to the effect that in the interest of good human relations canteen service will be available to all employees at all times? Will he now reaffirm his earlier decision?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I will investigate to determine if the restaurant is closed and canteen services available. I would be surprised if no food is availabe to employees on the graveyard shift or any other shift.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think, if the Postmaster General will investigate, he will see that the situation is precisely as it was a few months ago. May I ask this supplementary question: does he not agree that the way to heal the malaise in the Post Office Department is by ensuring good industrial relations?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, well fed postmen on the midnight shift will do a lot to increase morale. But morale in the post office has never been higher. If it is related to food, they must eat very well these days.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister has been somewhat reluctant to reveal

the names of the 25 Canadian companies which would get sizeable production benefits from the Lockheed deal. I have before me two lists, one naming the 25 principal companies which will benefit and a second, much longer list, which was made available to me, naming companies which might receive benefits. Some of the names on the latter list include companies like B.C. Aviation Research Council, which makes a marine borer prevention system. These appear as unlikely candidates for work on the LRPA. I would therefore ask the minister to table both lists of companies which are supposed to do work on the LRPA, together with a brief description of the work they will be doing and the approximate cost.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member does not expect me to table something, when I do not know exactly what I am supposed to table. I have not seen the list. I must apologize to certain hon. members, to whom I said earlier that I thought I could make the list available. I am looking into that today, to see if it is possible. I was told that the only reason it is not is that these are speculative lists. They depend on whether companies are successful in the tendering process. If the hon. member would be good enough to let me see the lists, I will be glad to make them as open as we possible can, without jeopardizing the interests of the companies concerned once arrangements for the tendering process are completed.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly co-operate with the minister.
My second question is for the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister tell the House three things about the LRPA Lockheed deal now being negotiated? Exactly how much money is being borrowed; how long is the period of the loan; and what kind of security will Canadian banks get for their loan, inasmuch as the government has said categorically that it will not guarantee the loan?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we are now in the final stages of important negotiations between the Lockheed company and Canadian banks and I expect to be able to make an announcement about those discussions fairly soon.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In his absence on April 13 I asked the Prime Minister if Miss Carmel Carriere, whose appointment to the Immigration Appeal Board is to end on May 10, 1976, is to be reappoint-
April 26, 1976

ed. I ask the minister to indicate whether his cabinet colleagues have recommended that Miss Carmel Carriere be reappointed? Further, will the minister consider not reappointing Miss Carriere to the Immigration Appeal Board until the Sky Shops affair has been concluded in court?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the recommendation. On the second point, as I recall, the appointment was to a temporary position. It was to last for a two year term and was for the purpose of cleaning up the appeal backlog. We do not intend to renew these appointments when they terminate.


POST OFFICE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Is it the practice of the Post Office Department to sell Canadian stamps to foreign distributors for one third less than the face value of the stamps?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I know exactly to what the hon. member alludes. It is a practice engaged in by at least 15 other countries. Rather than opening permanent offices in Europe, we have appointed distributors to sell to the philatelic field. They get a discount, which is below the regular retail value, and then sell the stamps retail. Since they sell to the philatelic world, we take all precautions to make sure these stamps do not find their way back to Canada.


John Raymond Ellis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister confirm that the department is selling to United States philatelic dealers who are within 200 or 300 miles of the Canadian border, sometimes at prices much below face value?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member implies that the stamps come back to Canada at a discount. But the discount is not sufficiently large to warrant anybody doing it. We also know what quantities distributors in virtually every country, including the United States, purchase and this can identify those who might attempt to ship stamps back into Canada.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of momentous privilege to the women of my province. Sixty years ago today, the women of Alberta received the right to vote. I wish to report, Mr. Speaker, that in the most recent elections thay have been exercising that franchise in a manner entirely commendable, completely logical and in accordance with the welfare of my province, a situation which I hope will soon spread to the rest of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Ministerial Responsibility


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, during the question period I very briefly raised a point of order. I raise it again now in a little more detail and depth in order to get an answer, guideline, or possibly a ruling from Your Honour with regard to the whole question of ministerial responsibility and, indeed, the right of members of the opposition to question members on the treasury benches with respect to matters within their jurisdiction or, indeed, competence.
There has been a fair amount of circumlocution during the past few days and weeks with regard to the question whether there has been any vetting of contracts or dealings by a particular minister with regard to a particular province or region of Canada. In statements made today by the Prime Minister it came out that there has been input by a minister or group of ministers with regard to matters arising in various provinces. In other words, there has been an admission on the part of the government that at this point in time there is some responsibility attributable to certain ministers for matters arising within their areas. If, in fact, the government has given some responsibility with regard to granting of contracts or leases, and indeed the matter on which we are now questioning the government, the ministers involved in particular areas should be responsible for answering certain questions with regard to that.
If Your Honour in fact finds there is no requirement on the part of ministers to answer questions regarding matters arising within their general areas, or in fact it is not a matter of responsibility or places the legal interpretation that ministers have no right to have input with respect to contracts within a particular province or area, that is one thing. However, there has been no admission on the part of the government or the Prime Minister that this in fact goes against the Financial Administration Act: they say that the practices and procedures are quite within the law.
After admitting that they are vetting contracts and leases within a particular province, ministers should be obliged to answer questions with regard to their involvement and participation in them. If they have this responsibility, they should be required to answer in the House of Commons with regard to all aspects of their activities relating to the granting of contracts. They should not be allowed to hide behind the technical appellation they have with respect to a particular department, but should in fact answer questions regarding any input into the granting of contracts. I give as an example the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce did answer questions with respect to the involvement of his staff relating to matters over which he does not now have jurisdiction.
I submit to Your Honour, with the greatest deference, that it should not only be a ruling of the Chair but a right of opposition members to have every opportunity to investigate these matters, whether they be technically within the responsibility of a particular department, if-as it is now acknowledged-there is some method within cabinet for input by ministers for particular areas. I ask Your Honour to take this matter under consideration and in future question periods to allow us to direct questions to leaders within a particular province, as there is apparently an admission that they do in fact vet all contracts that come within their province.

April 26, 1976
Ministerial Responsibility


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fairly obvious that there is a long-standing tradition in this place-and there are very good reasons for it-that a responsible minister answers in relation to matters having to do with his department and matters coming within his purview when matters cross several departments; and, of course, questions are from time to time put to the Prime Minister. It is perfectly obvious that members opposite may have questions of interest having to do with political matters or matters outside the purview of a minister's department or the government's operations as a government, but this House is not the place for those questions to be put. In fact, the rules of this House prohibit it.
There is, in each case to which the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar refers, where any matter of government business takes place, a minister responsible for that business, and-certainly in this government-he stands in his place ready to take responsibility for what is done within his department, to answer for it and to answer for the procedures in relation to it.
There are, of course, many submissions from members of parliament inside the House and citizens outside the House in relation to matters of government business. Indeed, conscientious members of the opposition from time to time write to ministers asking that careful consideration be given to a particular case or cause of a constituent, district or city. Clearly, that does not shift any responsibility from the member of the opposition but, rather, leaves responsibility on the government and the minister in relation to his department for the thing that is done, if it is done, and the way in which it is done. That supports the long-standing rule with regard to questions to ministers relating to their departments and the exception to it made in relation to the Prime Minister because of his broad, over-all government responsibility.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the acting government House leader referred to the opposition and our request for answers to certain questions. Indeed, the acting government House leader, the Minister of Transport, put the classic case within the rules of this House with regard to questions about ministerial responsibility as established by the government.
The questions that we are now asking have been responsibly and fully dealth by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. They relate to a direct assignment of responsibility by the Prime Minister, the leader of the government, to particular ministers. One concerns the Minister of the Environment, at the time the minister of regional economic expansion, whose mandate from the leader of his party and the government went far beyond the operations of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. By the admission of the Prime Minister today-and it will be seen in public print tomorrow-the minister was involved in vetting things that had absolutely nothing to do with regional economic expansion. That was not by accident, but by design, because he was an acknowledged leader in a particular province. Surely it would be improper, and would indeed fetter the ordinary operations of the opposition, if the Chair allowed the government to hide behind the classic definition that was just put by the Minister of Transport, as it has no applica-

tion to this particular type of case. That is the point of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.
I go one step further. If there is to be any order with respect to leasing, rentals or anything else involving government expenditure, something must govern-and surely that is the Financial Administration Act. If there is to be a case made for ministerial propriety, surely questions can be directed to the President of the Treasury Board with regard to financial administration. In fact, we should not be left there; we should not be stepped from asking questions of a minister whom we feel is carrying out responsibilities, as admitted by the Prime Minister, beyond the power of the ministry under the Financial Administration Act. Surely we cannot be fettered in that respect. That is the point made by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, one which is important from the point of view of the opposition and its rights to ask questions and the responsibility, at least politically, of the government to answer them.
It is such an important question that I ask you, Mr. Speaker, not to make a judgment today but to consider the matter in light of what has been said on both sides and decide later whether it would be proper to fetter the opposition in this way.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the position taken by the Minister of Transport, the acting House leader, and to indicate, by using one or two examples, that his view is perfectly correct. The minister responsible for a department or for a particular appointment must, in the end, answer for it. I am answerable for appointments, for instance, when I name a particular person to the Senate from a province which is not my own province. I would, however, ask the advice of the senior member from that province.
When I appointed the former Conservative leader from Nova Scotia to the Senate a few months ago, I did discuss the matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs who knows that province well and was in a position to confirm the respectability and qualifications of that particular person. When I named the former Conservative member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), to the Senate, I discussed the matter with the present Minister of the Environment because that is a province which he, also, knows well. But the responsibility of appointments to the Senate is mine, just as the opposition has been making it clear that I was responsible for appointing Senator Giguere. If they have questions to ask, they can direct them to me. But the convenience of consulting a minister who represents a particular province, whether the matter concerns the appointment of a senator or of a lieutenant-governor, of finding a qualified lawyer or an engineer able to do a job, cannot be underestimated since these are things a prime minister does not know because he cannot know the whole country.
It frequently happens that a minister responsible for a particular department is not acquainted with the firms which operate in another part of the country. I repeat, by way of example, that the responsibility is taken by the responsible minister and he is answerable to the House with respect to his political judgment. As the President of
April 26, 1976

the Treasury Board said, we are politicians; we have to make political judgments; we are answerable to the people for those judgments, and we are answerable to this House. If the opposition were to ask us, as they did ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, about Carmel Carriere, we would accept responsibility-and if the people do not like our answers, they know what to do at the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad I have at least the theoretical support of the opposition, because by their applause they are indicating that this is the correct procedure; that we should be responsible, and not someone else.


Mr. Speaker:: Since it does not appear that other hon. members wish to contribute to the discussion of this interesting point of order, let me say I am prepared to take it under consideration, but I must exercise some caution. I am sure members of the opposition who have indicated their desire that I extend the parameters of the question period to permit the kind of question asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar earlier today are not seriously suggesting that reconsideration should be given in terms of the full range of political responsibility which is generally accepted as falling upon members in the geographical sense.
I think the political responsibility involved there is well known. It has never been extended to the ambit of the question period, and that is not what is being requested from me. Nevertheless, I am prepared to look at this particular matter, in view of the circumstances, and give a definitive answer tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order. During the question period, when the Minister of the Environment was answering questions put to him by the hon. member for Joliette concerning recommendations with respect to a contract, or certain contracts, inside the province of Quebec, the Minister of the Environment said he had received recommendations regarding this matter from all members in all parties: at least, that is what I heard him say. I suggest this casts a rather wide net. The inference was that there were recommendations which went beyond the rules of propriety from all members of all parties. If that is what he said, I think the Minister of the Environment should table those recommendations or at least table a list of those who made them to him.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that I would like to make very clear if I did not do so in the interview that I gave. I want the House to understand that there is no interference in the granting of contracts for which there is a call for tenders. The decision is based on the merits of the tenders. Even in the case of CARA which was the low bidder, this company got the Mirabel franchise instead of someone else.
When it is a matter of a recommendation where the government has some discretion, then representations come from everywhere. For instance, they can come from the New Democratic Party, from the Senate or from a
Ministerial Responsibility
judge, and there is nothing shocking about this. Everyone is aware of it, including the provincial governments and the opposition. Moreover, it is useless to create an atmosphere of scandal when we are simply following regular procedure.


John Edward Broadbent: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister-as is not infrequently the case-has added further confusion to the confusion which arose from his earlier statement. I believe he has an obligation to make a distinction between the kind of requests that he gets. In answer to questions on the orders of the day, he said, or implied, that members of the House of Commons made requests on behalf of their constituents or on behalf of other groups or persons in Canada. Such requests are, within one category, entirely appropriate; they form part of what we were elected to do.
What the minister failed to do when he spoke in a general way about requests was to distinguish those requests from requests which violate government guidelines or the laws of Canada. Such a distinction is important. If the minister has had requests made to him by any member of any party asking that a course of action be taken which violates treasury procedures or the laws of Canada, he has a duty to make available a list of such requests.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am in complete agreement with the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). We should establish a distinction. For my part, I am not at all shocked when I receive requests from any source. Of course, the problem is as follows; when the request is for something illegal and unethical, I agree that it must be turned down; if undue influence is used, it should be criticized publicly. If the official opposition wants to blame us for such action, let them come right out and say so instead of making only general suggestions and creating an atmosphere of corruption where there is none.
If there has been, let them say where. As concerns the Sky Shops affair, I have cooperated entirely with the RCMP. I have given them all the information that they asked. I have given them everything that they wanted and they know this, including very personal documents. I have cooperated with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police because I knew that everything that I did was legal. I did nothing wrong in the Sky Shops affair.
The other matters are before the courts, and this is where they should be. If there are some irregularities, the judge will say so, and then we shall know where we stand.

April 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the twenty-eighth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and finds it meets the requirements of the Standing Order as to form.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,912, 3,969, 4,112, 4,120, 4,304 to 4,308 inch, 4,589, 4,593, 4,618, 4,774, 4,928, 4,930, 4,944, 4,953, 4,962, 4,964, 4,996, 5,019, 5,027, 5,055 to 5,064 inch, 5,100 and 5,136.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What are the 18 projects which were provided with financial assistance under the Community Legal Services Programme?
2.	Have all provincial governments been notified of the broadening of the programme to permit funding of research projects, etc.?
3.	What are the names of all persons who have applied for new funding?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: 1. The projects receiving contributions under the 1975-76 Community Legal Services Programme are identified on the following list. (Marked "A")
2.	Details relating to the broadened mandate of the Community Legal Services Programme were included in the programme press release and application forms. Copies of these forms were forwarded to the offices of the Provincial Attorneys General as well as to other provincial government agencies.
3.	As of January 30, 1976, the organizations that have applied for funding under this programme for the fiscal year 1976-77 are shown on the following list. (Marked "B")
"A"-Matsqui Sumas, Abbotsford Community Legal Services, Abbotsford, British Columbia; British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Vancouver, British Columbia; Vancouver Community Legal Assistance Society, Vancouver, British Columbia; Saskatoon Legal Assistance Clinic Society, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Manitoba Law Students' Legal Aid, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Correctional Law and Legal Assist-

ance Project, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario; Queen's Law Students' Legal Aid Society, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario; Legal Assistance of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario; People and Law, Toronto, Ontario; University of Toronto Students' Legal Aid Society, Toronto, Ontario; Injured Workmen's Consultants, Toronto, Ontario; Problem Central, Toronto, Ontario; Neighbourhood Legal Services, Toronto, Ontario; Association Cooperative d'Economie Familiale, Hull, Quebec; L'Association pour la defense des droits sociaux du Quebec metropolitain, Quebec, Quebec; Centre Communautaire Juridique de Montreal, (Immigration Legal Services Project), Montreal, Quebec; Les Services Juridiques Populates de Sherbrooke, Inc., Sherbrooke, Quebec; Penitentiary Legal Services Association, Sackville, New Brunswick; Dalhousie Legal Aid Service, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Maliiganik Tukisiiniakvik, Frobisher Bay, N.W.T.
"B"-The University of B.C. Legal Clinic, Vancouver, British Columbia; Lower Mainland Unemployed Citizen's Welfare Improvement, Vancouver, British Columbia; Vancouver Community Legal Assistance Society, Vancouver, British Columbia; Matsqui, Abbotsford Community Services, Vancouver, British Columbia; The University Legal Aid Centre, University of Manitoba, Faculty of Law, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation, Toronto, Ontario; Les Services Juridiques Populaires de Sherbrooke, Inc., Sherbrooke, Quebec; Association Cooperative d'Economie Familiale, Hull, Quebec; La Clinique Juridique Populaire de Hull Inc., Hull, Quebec; Centre de Communication & d'lnformation Mobile, Bathurst, New Brunswick; Penitentiary Legal Services, Sackville, New Brunswick.


Mr. Lefebvre: 1.	Since the 1974 spring flooding, what was the total amount claimed as compensation in (a) the Province of Quebec, (b) the Constituency of Pontiac, (c) each municipality in the Constituency of Pontiac?
2.	Of the total amount claimed in the Constituency of Pontiac, what was the amount of money and how many claims were accepted for compensation purposes under the federal-provincial agreement for (a) individuals, (b) provincial government, (c) provincial government agencies, (d) municipal governments, (e) school boards, (f) business and manufacturing establishments, (g) any other group?
3.	Of the total amount accepted for payment (a) in the Province of Quebec, (b) in the Constituency of Pontiac, what amount will be provided by the (i) government, (ii) provincial government?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: 1.
The federal government has offered to share the cost of assistance provided by the Province of Quebec to victims of the 1974 flood. The offer of assistance was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal Disaster Assistance Program, under which the province is reimbursed for a certain portion of the costs incurred as prescribed by formula. Following completion of its flood damage assistance program the province requested that a sample audit be conducted pending submission of its claim for final settlement of account. The sample audit which was conducted by the federal auditors identified several problems and the province has chosen to have these clarified before rendering its final account. As soon as these problems are resolved and the claim from the province has
April 26, 1976

been received, the audit will be completed and the payment made.
2.	See above.
3.	See above.


Mr. Gillies: Does the Post Office Department sell mint Canadian postage stamps to philatelic distributors in the United States at a price less than the face value of the stamps and, if so, what is the annual value of sales?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: No. Sales of mint Canadian postage stamps by the Canada Post Office of its agents, to philatelic distributors or other purchasers, are not made at a price less than face value.


Mr. Robinson: Are there nurses in Canada trained in "barrier nursing" techniques and, if so, how many?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The training received by all graduate nurses includes understanding of isolation techniques in providing care for patients with communicable diseases. There exists a stand-by pool of approximately 80 nurses who have undergone specialized training in barrier nursing techniques related to medical flight evacuation operations.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Are activities being carried out by the Solicitor General Correctional Consultation Centre in the Prairie region and, if so (a) what are they, (b) on what specific projects, (c) who are the individuals involved, (d) what is the cost of each project?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Yes. See following statement for details.
Prairie Region
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)Rehabilitation Services for Natives	A project to continue the development of services to assist in the rehabilitation of Native ex-inmates, in particular, those in rural communities and reserves	Native Clan Organization of Manitoba	$ 75,000Indian Community Corrections Workers Project	A project to establish a core of Indian Probation Officers, as recommended following a study of correctional services in Saskatchewan	Department of Social Services, Province of Saskatchewan	$368,179Human Justice Services Program	To assist the University's School of Social Work develop, with the Saskatchewan Criminology and Corrections Association, a program of university studies in the area of human justice services, known in other areas as "applied criminology"	University of Regina, Province of Saskatchewan	$132,566Pilot Alberta Restitution Centre	The establishment of a restitution centre to determine the efficacy of the diversion process in comparison to current practice for non-violent, personal property offenders under $500	Department of the Solicitor General, Province of Alberta	$ 35,376


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Are activities being carried out by the Solicitor General Correctional Consultation Centre in the Maritime region and, if so (a) what are
they, (b) on what specific projects, (c) who are the individuals involved, (d) what is the cost of each project?


William Warren Allmand: Yes. See following statement for details.
Atlantic Region
(1)	(b)	(c)	(d>Alternative to Charging Young Persons	Project to assess the value of providing alternative services, rather than court action, to young persons charged under the Juvenile Delinquents Act	Department of Social Services, Province of Nova Scotia	$ 42,000Manpower Training and Development Study	Study to evaluate the present and future needs of correctional agencies in Atlantic Canada for para-professional correctional workers; to evaluate the need for improving existing skills; and design appropriate training program with a model for its evaluation	College of Cape Breton, Sydney, Nova Scotia	$ 10,000Rehabilitation and Prevention Services for Juveniles	A community-developed demonstration project involving a specially-trained constable, released from regular duties, to work with juveniles	Town of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia	$ 39,100Atlantic Region Staff Training and Development Program	To contribute to the development of a staff training and development program for corrections in Atlantic Canada over a three-year period	Department of Justice, Province of New Brunswick	$240,720Information Communication Project in Criminal Justice	A project to assess and determine the attitudes of the public, and those persons working in corrections, towards criminal justice services in the Province of Nova Scotia	Department of the Attorney General, Nova Scotia	$306,300
April 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Are activities being carried out by the Solicitor General Correctional Consultation Centre in the Quebec region and, if so (a) what are they,
(b) on what specific projects, (c) who are the individuals involved, (d) what is the cost of each project?


William Warren Allmand: Yes. See following statement for details.
Quebec Region
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)West Island Juvenile Diversion Project	A diversionary project involving delinquent youths centered around training in riding, mechanics and safety of mini-bikes which had been contributed by Honda Corporation	Montreal West-Island Y.M.C.A.	$19,709Casework Program	A Casework Program aimed at the prevention of juvenile delinquency and rehabilitation of youthful offenders	Sun Youth Organization, Inc., Montreal, Quebec	$74,237Project 80	A crime prevention project, in Montreal Centre-Sud, aimed at children aged 3 to 15	Recreation Project 80 Inc., Montreal, Quebec	$10,000


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Are activities being carried out by the Solicitor General Correctional Consultation Centre in the Ontario region and, if so (a) what are they,
(b) on what specific projects, (c) who are the individuals involved, (d) what is the cost of each project?


William Warren Allmand: Yes. See following statement for details.
(a)
Ontario Region (b)
(c)
Information Centre on Volunteers in Corrections
Rehabilitation & Training Program for Group-Home Children & Parents Volunteer Adult Probation Services Policing a Peaceful Community: A Model for Human Resource Development in the Burlington Police Department Attendance Centre Program
Family Crisis Intervention Project
To gather complete information on all'volunteer programs in the Province of Ontario for the purpose of being an information resource centre on volunteers in corrections for Federal, Provincial and Municipal Governements and providing advice to new volunteer groups establishing programs
A project to provide a model rehabilitation program for group-home children and parents; provide resources to develop social and academic achievements; and provide resources to train group-home parents in techniques of modifying behaviour
The development and operation of a demonstration project of volunteers in adult probation services in Ottawa
Pilot project in police development involving the Burlington Police Department to examine policing entire system
The development of an "Attendance Centre" for the purpose of providing a Juvenile and Family Court Judge with an alternative to sentencing a person to a training school or treatment home while, at the same time, keeping the young offender in the community
To conduct a research study into the needs of the London Police Department in meeting the problems of family crisis intervention, and developing an operation training model once the needs are identified
The	Frontenac A three-year demonstration project to divert juvenile from the Crimi-
Diversion Program	nal Justice system by way of:
(a)	a "Juvenile Court Committee" which is a body of community representatives which acts as a screening mechanism by which many juvenile offenders are handled outside Juvenile Court, and
(b)	a "Restitution Project" which involves the informal negotiation of restitution agreements between juvenile offenders and their victims and thus provides a dispositional alternative at the police intake, and court stages of the juvenile justice system
A Youth Crime Pre-	A five-year crime prevention and diversion program involving volunvention Program	teers in the Downsview Weston Action Community of Metropolitan
Toronto
John	Augustus
Society,	Toronto,
Ontario
Dr. C. H. Pierce (In trust)
J. J. Kiessling (In trust)
Foundation	for
Human Development
John Howard Society, Hamilton, Ontario
Research Office of the University of Western Ontario, in co-operation with the London	Police
Department Judge G. M. Thomson, Provincial Court (Family Division), Kingston, Ontario
Downsview Weston Action Youth Committee, Toronto, Ontario
(d)


[Stage Direction]
April 26, 1976
Mr. Hnatyshyn: Are activities being carried out by the Solicitor General Correctional Consultation Centre in the Pacific region and, if so (a) what are they,
Order Paper Questions
(b) on what specific projects, (c) who are the individuals involved, (d) what is the cost of each project?


William Warren Allmand: Yes. See following statement for details.
Pacific Region
(a)	(b)	(C)	(d)Community Diver-	To contribute to the developmental costs of a Community Diversion	Community	Diver-	$60,090sion Centre, Victoria	Centre, Vicotria, through which persons can be diverted from the	sion Centre
Prison system by way of their being referred to community agencies for rehabilitation


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): L Have any feature length films produced with financial assistance from the Canadian Film Development Corporation been shown on (a) CBC network, (b) local CBC stations and, if so, what was the number and percentage of such feature films shown on (i) CBC network (ii) CBLT (iii) CBUT (iv) CBCT?
2.	For each year 1972 to date, what percentage of all feature length films shown on (a) CBC network, (b) CBLT, (c) CBUT, (d) CBCT were (i) produced with financial assistance from CFDC (ii) Canadian films?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (a) Yes. (b) No. (i) French television network: 37 showings of 26 films from 1972 to date. English television network: 8 films have been_shown, two of them more than once, from 1972 to date, (ii), (iii), (ivFSo far, Canadian-produced feature films have only been scheduled for network release.
2.	(a) Records are not maintained in such a way as to permit a calculation of the percentage of CFDC-supported feature films of all feature length films shown on CBC networks, (b), (c) and (d) See answer to 1 (ii) above.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	With reference to CBC advertisement in the Winnipeg Free Press, February 24, 1976, was this placed in the paper in the French language only and, if so, for what reason?
2.	What are the language criteria used when placing advertisements in Canadian newspapers?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes. The advertisement was placed in French only through an unintentional mistake.
2.	Normal practice in the CBC's Prairie Region is to place advertisements in French in the French-language press and in English in the English-language press.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Are Montreal Canadians' away-games televised by CBC in the Province of Quebec and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Are Vancouver Canucks' away-games televised by CBC in the Province of British Columbia and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Did CBC televise the Buffalo-Montreal Canadians game on March 6, 1976 for British Columbia viewers but not televise the Vancouver-Kansas City game played in Kansas on the same date and, if so, for what reason?
4.	Does CBC promote games in the World Hockey Association which has more Canadian teams than the National Hockey League and, if not, for what reason?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Not on a regular basis by the English network, although playoff games are carried. Montreal Canadien's away-games are sometimes carried in Quebec by the CBC's French network, which now has two evenings a week of hockey instead of the English network's one. However, next season, when the French network's coverage of hockey on Wednesday evenings is expected to end, Canadiens' away-games will not be carried by the French network, unless they are played against another Canadian team.
2.	Not in regular season when the away-games in the United States, but playoff games are carried. The English network carries hockey on Saturday evenings only, when there is at least one Canadian team playing at home. The home game is the one carried on the national network.
3.	Yes. As stated in part 2, games invloving one or more Canadian teams playing at home are carried rather than games outside the country. The Buffalo-Montreal game was played in Montreal.
4.	No. CBC does not have a contract to carry World Hockey Association games, rights to some of which are

April 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions
held by Global TV (for the Toronto Toros) and TVA (for the Quebec Nordiques). The CBC carries National Hockey League games and, as noted in parts 2 and 3, the Saturday evening schedule emphasizes at-home games of Canadian teams. The CBC does not feel it can add a second evening of hockey to the English network in view of its other national, regional and local programming responsibilities.


Mr. MacKay: How many (a) NCOs, (b) officers have been dismissed from the RCMP during the past ten years and, in each case, under which section or regulation of the RCMP Act?


William Warren Allmand: (a) 38, Regulation 173; 19, Regulation 177. (b) 1, Regulation 173; Nil, Regulation 177.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the inception of the Fishing Operation Loan Programme, what has been the total amount of loans granted to Quebec fishermen and fishing firms?
2.	In each case, what was the (a) purpose of the loan, (b) region concerned, (c) average annual interest rate, (d) number of loans granted, (e) name of the lending institutions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As of
December 31, 1975. 1.	$162,796.
2. (a) and (e) This information is not available, (b) Regional statistics within provinces are not maintained, (c) 1955, 30/06/68, 5.00 per cent; 1/07/68, 31/03/69, 7.50 per cent; 1/04/69, 30/09/69, 7.75 per cent; 1/10/69, 31/03/70, 8.50 per cent; 1/04/70, 30/09/70, 8.50 per cent; 1/10/70, 31/03/71, 8.00 per cent; 1/04/71, 30/09/71, 7.00 per cent; 1/10/71, 31/03/ 72, 6.75 per cent; 1/04/72, 30/06/73, 6.25 per cent; 1/07/73, 31/03/74, 8.25 per cent; 1/04/74, 30/09/74, 9.75 per cent; 1/10/ 74, 31/03/75, 10.00 per cent; 1/04/75, 30/09/75, 8.00 per cent; 1/10/75, 31/03/76, 8.75 per cent, (d) 129.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the inception of the New Horizons Programme, were any subsidies granted in the Constituency of Temiscamingue and, if so, in what amount?
2.	In each case, what was the (a) name of the subsidy, (b) amount, (c) year of approval, (d) number of jobs generated, (e) municipality involved?


Marc Lalonde: 
Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,161, regarding drug cases in court in which the Minister of Justice stated that he was "determining the necessary measures required to rectify the problem", has the Minister taken any action since October 16, 1975 and, if so, in what manner?


Stanley Ronald Basford: A close review of drug cases in the Courts of British Columbia was done prior to the end of 1975. As a result of this study, various steps have been taken in order to improve the prosecution of such cases. Legal supervision of the agents acting for the Attorney General of Canada in British Columbia has been decentralized and is now primarily the responsibility of the Regional Director of the Department of Justice in Vancouver. There exists in British Columbia a substantial back-log of cases of every nature. Discussions have taken place with representatives of the Attorney General of the Province in order to determine the possibility of improving court facilities in Vancouver for a better handling of drug cases. It is clear, however, that the back-log of drug cases in British Columbia is only part of a much larger problem of a back-log of criminal cases, not only in British Columbia but in other provinces as well. In February, the Minister of Justice asked the Law Reform Commission to accelerate its work in relation to pre-trial procedures with a view to reducing the delay in getting criminal cases on to trial. The Commission has agreed to do this and has established a task force consisting of judges, prosecutors and defence counsel to deal with this problem. The provincial attorneys general have all responded favourably and enthusiastically to this initiative and the Commission's proposals will be presented at a meeting of the eleven attorneys general in Vancouver in June. The Minister of Justice has stated that if general agreements can be reached about the changes which should be made, he would be prepared to move quickly with amendments to the Criminal Code.
April 26, 1976


Mr. Roy (Laval): Has the Department of Finance made a grant to the City of Laval in the Constituencies of Duvernay and Laval under the Winter Capital Fund Programme and, if so, in each case, what was the (a) amount granted, (b) nature of the project?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As of March 24, 1976 the following loans had been made under the Winter Capital Projects Fund for construction projects in the City of Laval.
Nature of Project	Amount Granted
Construction of access roads, bridges, autoroutes, lights on highway 440	$8,294,256
Construction of an overpass at highway 440 and 15	$1,905,848


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	For each of the past five years, what was the total of loans issued by the Canadian banking system for the construction of non-residential buildings and industrial plants in Canada?
2.	What was the average term of the loans?
3.	What is the average estimated period for accounting the depreciation of the buildings and plants involved?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: have been informed by the Bank of Canada as follows: 1, 2 and 3. Banks are not required to provide information on their lending classifed by the object of the expenditure.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since 1964, have government officials participated in courses offered by the IMF Institute and, if so, (a) how many, (b) what are their names and positions?
2.	Are they presently employed by the government and, if so, in what capacities?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Since 1964, the date the IMF institute was inaugurated, six Canadian government officials have participated in courses offered by the Institute. A seventh is scheduled to start a course this spring. The six former participants, their positions, and the courses they took are (1) Dubuc, Andre, who was with the Bank of Canada, is now with Hydro Quebec in Montreal. Course: Financial Analysis and Policy. (2) Dunn, Robert A., Operations Officer, Treasurer's Department, International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C. 20431. Course: Financial Analysis and Policy. (3) Houle, Rene, Analyst, Departement des relations Internationales, Banque du Canada, Ottawa, K1A 0G9. Course: Balance of Payments Methodology. (4) Malouin, Jacques, Financial Officer, French Productions, National Film
Order Paper Questions
board, P.O. Box 6100, Station A, Montreal, Quebec, H3L 3H5. Course: Financial Analysis and Policy. (5) Robillard, Richard H., Economist, Economic Development Division, Department of Finance, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0G5. Course: Balance of Payments Methodology. (6) Vachon, J. Serge, Conseiller en recherches, Departement des etudes bancai-res et financieres, Banque du Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0G9. Course: Financial Analysis and Policy. This coming spring, John Motala of Statistics Canada is to participate in the course on Balance of Payments Methodology.


Mr. Howie: 1.	On March 11, 1976, were job openings in the Atlantic Region reported to the local Canada Manpower Centre by (a) General Machine and Steel Works Ltd., Fredericton, N.B., (b) City Centre Development Ltd., Campbellton, N.B. and, if so, how many?
2.	Were such positions filled by persons referred to the firm by the local Canada Manpower Centre and, if so, how many?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) and (b) No.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1973, (b) March 31, 1974, (c) March 31, 1975?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1973, (b) March 31, 1974, (c) March 31, 1975?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1973, (b) March 31, 1974, (c) March 31, 1975?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1. (a) 31-3-73, $269,053,974.73; (b) 31-3-74, $315,731,881.96; (c) 31-3-75, $393,645,391.52.
2.	31-3-73, 5.8969 per cent; 31-3-74, 6.1148 per cent; 31-3-75, 6.4164 per cent.
3.	(a) 31-3-73, $9,498,815.49; (b) 31-3-74, $11,649,384.89; (c) 31-3-75, $14,281,057.27.
4.	(a) 31-3-73, $2,329,355.53; (b) 31-3-74, $3,107,861.30; (c) 31-3-75, $4,096,312.44.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has the government participated financially or indicated an interest in any artificially controlled environment facilities for the growing of vegetables, plants or flowers?
2.	Are any studies underway or being considered to encourage the development of systems to overcome the economic effects of Canadian winters to facilitate increased Canadian production and to reduce the demand for imports?

April 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions
3.	Have studies been made of the Danish method of plant culture using continuous growth techniques?


Eugene Whelan: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	Plant growth systems are monitored on an international basis and no specific Danish method is known.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From 1965 to date, how much has been invested in the Province of Quebec by the government for the creation of national parks?
2.	(a) How many permanent jobs have been created for the management and maintenance of such parks, (b) what is the annual cost of such services?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. $27,601 thousands.
2. (a) 53 permanent jobs; (b) $1,449 thousands, for 1975-76.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From 1965 to date, how much has been invested in the Province of Ontario by the government for the creation of national parks?
2.	(a) How many permanent jobs have been created for the management and maintenance of such parks, (b) what is the annual cost of such services?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. $1,640 thousands.
2. (a) 15 permanent jobs; (b) $316 thousands, for 1975-76.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From 1965 to date, how much has been invested in the Province of Newfoundland by the government for the creation of national parks?
2.	(a) How many permanent jobs have been created for the management and maintenance of such parks, (b) what is the annual cost of such services?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. $7,178 thousands.
2. (a) 18 permanent jobs; (b) $640 thousands, for 1975-76.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From 1965 to date, how much has been invested in the Province of New Brunswick by the government for the creation of national parks?
2.	(a) How many permanent jobs have been created for the management and maintenance of such parks, (b) what is the annual cost of such services?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. $10,388 Thousands.
2. (a) 17 permanent jobs, (b) $599 thousands, for 1975-76.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From 1965 to date, how much has been invested in the Province of Nova Scotia by the government for the creation of national parks?
2.	(a) How many permanent jobs have been created for the management and maintenance of such parks, (b) what is the annual cost of such services?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. $5,682 thousands.
2. (a) 24 permanent jobs; (b) $608 thousands, for 1975-76.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From 1965 to date, how much has been invested in the Province of Prince Edward Island by the government for the creation of national parks?
2.	(a) How many permanent jobs have been created for the management and maintenance of such parks, (b) what is the annual cost of such services?


Iona Campagnolo: Nil.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From 1965 to date, how much has been invested in the Province of Manitoba by the government for the creation of national parks?
2.	(a) How many permanent jobs have been created for the management and maintenance of such parks, (b) what is the annual cost of such services?


Iona Campagnolo: Nil.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From 1965 to date, how much has been invested in the Province of Alberta by the government for the creation of national parks?
2.	(a) How many permanent jobs have been created for the management and maintenance of such parks, (b) what is the annual cost of such services?


Iona Campagnolo: Nil.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From 1965 to date, how much has been invested in the Province of Saskatchewan by the government for the creation of national parks?
2.	(a) How many permanent jobs have been created for the management and maintenance of such parks, (b) what is the annual cost of such services?


Iona Campagnolo: Nil.
April 26, 1976


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From 1965 to date, how much has been invested in the Province of British Columbia by the government for the creation of national parks?
2.	(a) How many permanent jobs have been created for the management and maintenance of such parks, (b) what is the annual cost of such services?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. $8,034 thousand.
2. (a) 20 permanent jobs; (b) $694 thousand, for 1975-76.
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)
original competition be unable to fill the position after a six month period has passed?
7.	What means are employed to ensure that the work to be undertaken by the new employee is satisfactorily executed during the period of the language course?
8.	What are the language capabilities of the employee to be used to fill the position for the interim period?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: The Commission is unable to reply to this question due to lack of information as to which competition is being referred to.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Were there nine applicants for a bilingual position in a recent Public Service Commission competition?
2.	Is at least 90 per cent of the work of this position presently in the French language?
3.	Was the winner of the competition unilingual English and, if so, was that person sent or will that person be sent on a language training course?
4.	Could the language training of the successful candidate last more than six months?
5.	(a) Have five persons been placed on an eligibility list for a maximum of six months, (b) are the first and second persons on the list bilingual?
6.	Do the Public Service Commission's regulations require the opening and publication of another competition should the winner of the


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the name and location of each veterans' hospital, either federally or provincially operated?
2.	By province and territory, for each hospital, how many veterans (a) have been on the waiting list since March 31, 1975, (b) are presently on the waiting list?
3.	What is the average waiting time for veterans to enter each veterans' hospital?
4.	What steps are being taken to alleviate or eliminate the waiting time at the veterans' hospitals?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Camp Hill Hospital, Halifax, Nova Scotia,
Queen Mary Veterans Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Ste. Anne's Hospital, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Westminster Hospital, London, Ontario, Deer Lodge Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Colonel Belcher Hospital, Calgary, Alberta.
		Active	Chronic and	
2.	Care	Domiciliary Care	(a) and (b)	(a)	(b)None	21	30Nova Scotia	Camp Hill Hospital	None	N/A	N/AQuebec	Queen Mary Veterans Hospital	None	76	186Quebec	Ste. Anne's Hospital	None	None	2Ontario	Westminster Hospital	None	50	50Manitoba	Deer Lodge Hospital	None	None	NoneAlberta	Colonel Belcher Hospital	3.	Active Care	Chronic and Domiciliary CareCamp Hill Hospital	Nil	18 to 24 monthsQueen Mary Veterans Hospital	Nil	Not applicableSte. Anne's Hospital	Nil	seven monthsWestminster Hospital	Nil	90 daysDeer Lodge Hospital	Nil	Two yearsColonel Belcher Hospital	Nil	Nil '4.	For active treatment there is no difficulty. The other requirements are presently under review.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-88, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

April 26, 1976
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House contains, essentially, two matters of interest and importance to the Wheat Board designated area. They are the formal provision of procedures for the election of the Wheat Board advisory committee; secondly, the broadening of the scope of the Canadian Wheat Board to establish separate pools for selected types of grain within an identifiable grade. This will be known to most members as a malting barley pool amendment, though in its words and possibilities it is broader than that.
The first part of the bill having to do with the election of the advisory committee follows an experiment which was very well received by the grain producers. The experiment was to set up an election procedure which allowed the producers within the Wheat Board area to nominate, and then to vote upon and elect, the members who would serve on their behalf on the 11-member Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee. There was a great deal of interest in the election that took place, in terms of the number of candidates and the breadth of experience and interest that the candidates represented, which resulted in electing members who in this way directly represent the producers in particular and identifiable regions. Under the existing law, of course, the election was a forerunner to the appointment by order in council since the law requires the 11-member board to be appointed in this fashion.
We had, of course, indicated that the election would be followed up with such appointment, and that has taken place. Indeed, the new committee has been functioning for a good number of meetings now, and while admittedly having some interesting growing pains as it became established, I think hon. members will agree that it is showing its real value. The Canadian Wheat Board relies on the committee for comment and opinion on matters affecting producers, though not, of course, transferring to it any of the essential responsibility for providing the best marketing expertise that the Wheat Board must exercise on its own. The advisory committee will, I hope play an increasingly important role in advising the Canadian Wheat Board of the views of producers on a multitude of matters and will also increasingly be in a position to report back to producers on matters within the board's responsibility. In this way producers can become informed by their own representatives in addition to the more formal releases or methods of communication adopted by the Wheat Board.
I said that the procedure was generally very well welcomed, and I believe that is also true of its operation. I am sure members will be glad of an opportunity in committee to look at the specific nature of the advisory board and to comment further upon it for its own future development. Certainly for my own part I shall welcome expressions of view from hon. members concerning the direction in which the advisory committee should go and the extent to which the input of producers can be improved. I have always been very concerned to establish as many means of consultation as possible with producers, particularly in regard to matters such as the marketing of their own grain in which they have a prime interest, even though necessarily it falls under the broad umbrella of the legislation of this parliament.
The establishment of a separate pool for malting barley has been discussed by those who have grown barley for quite a number of years. However, for a long time the view was taken by a good number of producer representatives that a pool was undesirable in view of the fact that the

selection of specific barley from among all the grades might be seen in itself as somewhat fortuitous and a rather special break for the individual producer who managed to have his grain selected.
As the selection of barley for a purpose such as malting became more important, and as more and more producers attempted to arrange their farm practices to raise a malting barley, putting increasing efforts into the production of barley for specific selection, the pendulum began to swing in the other direction. In the course of the years 1973 and 1974, therefore, we began to receive an increasing number of representations in favour of allowing for the separate pooling of the selected barley within a particular grade, and in due course the Wheat Board and its advisory committee joined in the representations that were made that this was a worth-while thing.
Accordingly, I indicated that I would be willing to put before the House a bill along these lines in the hope that the House would see fit to bring it into law in order for it to be effective in the present crop year. The indication of my willingness to do this came during the course of the last crop year when I indicated to the Canadian Wheat Board it would be desirable for it to keep accounts in such a way that if parliament did, indeed, make this law effective, the barley selected for malting this year could be pooled separately.
Hon. members from the Wheat Board region will be particularly aware of the fact that last year emphasis was placed on the desirability of separate pooling of selected grades of barley for malting purposes. In the last year period a good amount of what otherwise would be No. 1 feed barley was selected for malting purposes. Because the Wheat Board could not, under existing law, segregate the results of the pooling of that selected barley, it was merged with the broad pool for feed barley. While the difference between selected barley when it is selected from other higher grades is perhaps significant enough, it is even more significant in the case of selection from No. 1 feed barley. Quite obviously, as a result those farmers whose barley was selected felt they should have had the benefit of that selection. The argument could rage on, but certainly at this point in time many producer organizations-indeed, I do not know of an exception-have changed their former position in recommending against separate pooling and now endorse the separation of the selected grades.
As hon. members will know, I have been speaking about malting barley, and this is the key selection of grade that we have in mind; but the bill is broader, to give the Canadian Wheat Board and its advisory committee rather additional flexibility from time to time, when other types of grain within a broad grade are selected, to establish separate pools in those cases as well. I do not suggest the judgments will be easy in every case, as it was not over a period of years in this instance. However, it does seem to me it would be better to be in a position to respond quickly on the advice of producer groups, the advisory committee and of the Canadian Wheat Board itself, when a broad grade is being subdivided in practice by selection for a particular purpose, to allow pooling in that situation.
I therefore commend to hon. members this change in the legislation. I would be very glad to go into the reactions and views of the various representative groups throughout the prairie region with hon. members. I know their familiarity with these views will lead them to lending their support to this bill. I certainly welcome that as we see
April 26, 1976

it moving toward becoming law. In closing, I emphasize the importance of moving it forward since the crop year is moving along and it would be useful to add certainty to the proposition which I have put forward, that it would be desirable to have this law applied to the crop year now in progress, that is to say, the one which commenced last August 1 and which ends next July 31.
Notice of the intention to present the bill was given to the public well in advance of that time and I believe, therefore, that hon. members can move forward with happy hearts so that selected barley in this year can indeed be segregated in the pool, the Wheat Board having kept the appropriate accounts for that purpose.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore take great pleasure in moving the second reading of this bill and its reference to the committee.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the minister quite rightly pointed out that the experiment of an elected Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee has worked out well. I wish that committee the best in years to come. Bill C-88, as the minister has said, proposes to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to provide for the establishment of separate pools for selected grains, such as malting barley, probably the selected oats going into the rolled oats trade, and we are hopeful it will also include payments for selected high protein grains.
I note that the Palliser Wheat Growers Association has written the minister suggesting that Bill C-88 presently before the House is the proper vehicle under which to sort out high protein grades. The association goes on to state that this would not require special binning at the country elevator level, but that the protein level could be determined as it is by our American friends. The association further states that the Canadian Wheat Board has received some 34 cents a bushel premium for 13.5 per cent protein wheat, compared with 11.5 per cent. It suggests it would seem only fair that farmers growing the higher protein should be compensated, thereby promoting this incentive. The association goes on to say that this would lead to better land utilization by producers in consistently low protein areas, improving their performance by growing higher yield varieties. The association ends its letter by stating:
Due to the frustrations from delays, the producers are ready for some action.
I hope we can look forward to protein being included under this bill. The bill also provides a permanent basis for the election of prairie grain producers to the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee. Under the amendment, the board will exercise direction and supervision over the administrative process in all future elections to this advisory committee. The governor in council, however, will enact all rules and regulations, which means the minister will in fact have complete control. This will probably give producers some cause to ponder.
Mention could be made of the present snarl-up in the western grain stabilization plan whereby every producer now delivering must have the 2 per cent deduction applied, whether he wants to come into the plan or not, because the excluding stickers for their permit books are not yet available. This has caused the farmers in my area to become
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2) even more skeptical of this plan, especially now that they find the government's contribution to the plan will only be a bookkeeping entry and the money will probably be used elsewhere. This money could, of course, be used to promote the metrication of our grain industry. This is incomprehensible to producers in southern Saskatchewan. We have had no estimate of the cost of this metrication plan, but we note United States publications claiming an estimate ranging from $40 million to $100 million for the switch in that great country. If we take one-tenth of that, we end up with something between $4 million and $10 million.
It is all right for the government to be promoting this program. The bureaucrats may well say, "Let the costs fall where they may." They are not in the business, of course, and do not have to buy new scales, new tools and new labels. It is impossible to understand the claims by metric commission officials that the conversion will increase the export of our grain as our grain is presently sold on the basis of metric tons. The United States has used more common sense in its conversion, which is more gradual and selective. Each move must pass the test of benefit and existing cost. I suggest we could well take a look at this method in our country.
Because of this forced 2 per cent deduction under the grain plan, farmers are properly asking whether the government is trying to force a signing-up. Producers rightly suggest that it is probably much easier to have the amendments made to the plan now than getting the plan established and then trying to have it amended.
The minister indicated there was some skepticism in years gone by about obtaining additional premiums for malting barley because it might appear that this is special treatment for those who produce malting barley. This a very tricky question. The domestic and export malting industries require barley that is relatively plump and uniform in size, true to variety and type, which does not have excessive amounts of physical imperfections.
It is absolutely imperative that uniform germination takes pl^ce in the malting process. Barley must be low in moisture content. If it has to be stored for long periods, artificial drying will adversely affect germination. Producers, further, have to use sound methods of threshing and be careful not to peel or break the kernels. The protein content is very important. Low protein content is desirable. Most of these requirements are above and beyond requirements in respect of grade.
I hope this will give some appreciation of the care and technique required by producers to have their barley rated malting. It is interesting that sales in this crop year to date, of some 274,000 bushels of malting barley, have been selected from grain company stocks. I hope there will be some assurance from the minister that the grain companies will not reap the benefits from the malting premium.
In the last full crop year-that is, the 1974-75 crop year- over 18 million bushels of feed barley ended up in the malting houses. When a producer delivers grain to a western country elevator, normally no official grade is placed on the grain. The ticket is simply marked "Graded by agreement". This is the official basis for payment if accepted by the producer. This was the basis for any final

April 26, 1976
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)
payment by the Canadian Wheat Board. So any barley graded No. 1 feed and eventually ending up in the malt-house generated a final payment to the farmer of about 18 cents a bushel last year, whereas it generated a premium of up to and over $1 a bushel for the Canadian Wheat Board.
The minister is always saying he is held up by some final legal interpretation when it comes to giving the producer the benefit of the doubt. However, there seems to be no such qualms when the shoe is on the other foot. I think of the sorry story of the Temporary Wheat reserves Act payments of several years ago when producers were required to initiate court action in order to get the money from the government that was legally owing to them.
I question the legality of the Canadian Wheat Board proposal to pay to the grain companies some $10 million of the farmers' money in order to encourage the companies to build additional storage at Vancouver. All we know about this is what is reported in the Western Producer of April 15 where it is stated that the Canadian Wheat Board proposes to establish three categories. The companies were to receive guaranteed storage payments on 95 per cent of their total licensed capacity, less whatever percentage they reserved for non-board grain.
Those companies which build or increase their terminal elevator facilities by more than 2.5 million bushels will be eligible to receive guaranteed storage payments on all their licensed capacity. As I have said, it appears to me that this will cost western farmers some $10 million. I think the government of Canada could well take a look at this because it has a responsibility to help increase the storage space at the Pacific seaboard.
On top of that, the farmers are now aware of the proposed non-funding by the government under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. This, to them, seems to be consistent with the minister's mode of operation. We had a plea from him this year for more seeded acreage, and at the same time we had an announcement of lower initial grain prices to the western farmer. Our western grain, industry was built and developed on policies that were designed to bring the greatest good to the greatest number. We had standard handling tariffs. Now we have variable or flexible tariffs in country elevators.
We had no trucking from country elevators, but now we have it. We had standard grades across the prairies, and now we have protein standards at export and proposed protein granding at country elevators. We used to have the standard Crowsnest Pass freight rates for export grain. Now the minister is bringing forward proposals that the producers feel will make those rates variable. Where we formerly had complete Canadian Wheat Board control, we now have open market feed grains and a general freeing-up.
Grain from the northern and southern parts of the prairies used to be blended at export to give a uniform grade. Now the northern and southern grains are kept separate because of protein standards. Our whole grain transportation system, of course, is in a turmoil. The elevator companies do not know what the future holds. The railways do not know where they will go. Surely the government's transportation policy should be to develop a system to serve the needs of the grain industry, and not vice versa.

The net result of the meddling by the minister has brought the western grain industry to the point where it would be impossible to export the volumes of wheat of some 14 years ago. It is interesting to note that up to the present our wheat and Durum exports amount to some 260 million bushels. There are three more months until the end of the crop year. This means we will probably end up, at best, with 400 million bushels of wheat. Government grain statistics show that in the peak year, 1963-64, wheat exports were 594 million bushels. We might compare that with the 400 million bushels we will probably export this year in spite of all the government money poured into our system.
The minister has done this by using the capital accumulated by the discipline of the past. The word I get from the producers is, "Get the government off our backs for a while". By "the government," they mean the minister. No other country has the control of licensed varieties that Canada has. This is certainly necessary if we are to keep promoting our malting barley. It seems to me that we are slipping badly now. Our research scientists are being neglected. Their work on new varieties is being curtailed. Canada is losing its leadership.
Surely it is time for the government to allow producers to set up a check-off system so they can promote their own research and marketing. This could be done, hopefully, under the amendments we are now discussing in Bill C-88. We might look at our competitors in other countries to see what they are doing. We see that in Brazil they are expanding the network of paved roads to 63,000 kilometres. They will be spending $3.5 billion on railways in the period 1974-79. By the end of the decade the Brazilian merchant fleet will reach over 9'A million tons dead weight, with most of the ships having been produced in Brazilian shipyards.
On the other hand, we in Canada have practically no merchant marine. The rural credit programs in Brazil totalled $12 billion, with an average 11.2 per cent nominal interest rate, which in an inflationary economy means a real transfer to the agricultural sector. In our country, the largest grain handling organization, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, states its concern about the limited funds available and the lack of encouragement for young people to become involved in agricultural research and plant breeding. I should like to quote a statement by Mr. Avery Sahl, pool director and Wheat Board advisory committee member. He said:
But during the course of this discussion-and I might say that we had a Dr. Jack Morrison from Research Ottawa in attendance and I've personally had some communication with Dr. Hurd at the research station in Swift Current and some pretty startling realities have come to light as a result of those discussions ...
For instance, we've only got 30 cereal scientists or plant breeders left in Canada. They have about 29 or 30 back-up people such as chemists, you know, assist them in their efforts but I should also say that these same people, these same 30 plant breeders, really can't devote their total efforts to plant breeding because they're involved in teaching at universities and other administrative work.
He concluded by saying:
Well that's certainly true. During our discussion we learned that the people that are in the plant breeding program are in the general age
April 26, 1976

group of 50 years of age and we'll be losing these valuable people through normal retirement, you know, before very long.
The director says that the federal government has some responsibility in the area of basic research, as do agricultural producers through the Canadian Wheat Board, farmer-owned co-operatives and marketing agencies. So I say again that provision should be made in this bill for producer check-off as their contribution to the basic research that we need.
We are all aware of the fact that the Canadian National Railways' main line has been out of commission to the Pacific seaboard for some months. It is back in business now. The government has made no move to bypass this bottleneck in the Fraser canyon, which could be done with a simple 40-mile loop. We desperately need more facilities in the Pacific seaboard, and we see no reason why the government cannot act and why it cannot pay interest on the deferred settlements and extend those deferred settlements with interest for the present year or for two or three years.
We heard the minister say that we have to accept the "user pay" proposition and that the St. Lawrence Seaway tolls have to go up. It seems to me that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that the free market system under which the users pay is not working for the general good. We are told that the AT and east rates for export flour and winter grains for the maritimes will be removed. In this particular case there was no prior consultation with the industries. It was an arbitrary decision by the minister playing fast and loose with the industry, I suggest. From 1954 to 1974 world demand for flour increased by 50 per cent. Canada's share of the flour trade declined from 31 per cent to 11 per cent in 1974. The world flour market is fiercely competitive due to the implementation of subsidy programs by many foreign governments. Many markets for our winter exports can only be met by the export of flour to West Africa and the West Indies where there is no milling capacity. The Soviet Union has indicated that Canada is no longer competitive in world flour markets and that further increases in price will require them to look for alternate suppliers.
To return to the matter of the AT and east freight rates, the removal of which will be disastrous for our flour industry, Mr. Sneath, president of the Manitoba pool elevators, had this to say:
We have stated many times that the Seaway provides a service which is in the national interest and should not, therefore, be expected to generate a profit. Approximately one year ago, it was suggested by the Seaway authority to the Hon. Jean Marchand, then minister of transport, that rate increases should be considered. At the same time, a proposal to write off the long-term debt and interest charges, was also suggested. We encourage the latter, and suggest that such a move would increase traffic and, even at present rates, keep the Seaway down in the black.
The Manitoba pool president stated that decisions on this matter should not be made arbitrarily. He said:
As a member of the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association, and as users of the Seaway, we feel strongly that Canadian users should be consulted about the effects of any increase in rates on their operations.
It does not take much studying of the western Canadian grain industry to realize that the minister has handed to Mr. Justice Emmett Hall the impossible task of deciding
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2) the fate of our western rail system, primarily because none of the factors in our grain system at present are stable; everything seems to be in a state of flux. I will mention just one factor, namely, the inland terminal concept in western Canada which has everyone wondering.
The minister's treatment of our grain industry can be likened to a building catching fire. It is the combustion of one object which generates the heat required to ignite the next, and unless counter measures are taken the fire spreads farther and farther, becoming more difficult to control, until nothing is left.
When we look at the problems facing our industry, we remember that under the 1974 tariff structure for the country elevators it costs as much to lift the grain 50 feet into the air as it costs the railways to move it 1,000 miles. Other problems are the export grain rates to be changed, rail line abandonment, the metric conversion of the grain industry, the fact that our competitors have long-term deals with our best customers while we have none, more storage at the Pacific seaboard, etc. Perhaps we should consider storage of grain overseas where the customers are. Companies such as Imperial Oil, Standard Oil and Gulf would not keep their oil in the United States. They promote its sale by having it where the customers are. As I have mentioned, we need more research into new varieties of grain.
The minister's actions can be likened to baloney being sliced one thin slice after another. Pretty soon all we will have left is the string, and that is not much good to anyone. Right now grain farmers are about the only Canadian industry not priced out of world markets, and we would like to keep it that way.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my party generally supports this legislation in principle, but we have some comments to make on it. I hope the minister will consider some suggestions that we have to make both at this stage of the debate and in the committee for changes in the legislation. First I should like to comment on the bill in general, and then on two or three specific matters relating to it.
This bill defines the structure of the advisory committee, how its members will be elected, what their duties will be, how they will receive their pay and expenses, and so forth. The previous practice was that advisory committee members were appointed by the minister, usually on the recommendation of major farm organizations. As the minister explained earlier, and as we all know, the situation is now changed so that the producers themselves directly elect members of the advisory committee. The legislation also allows for the establishment of various constituencies for each of the 11 members of the committee and sets out the means for arriving at their pay, the meetings to be held- there will be six in number each year, and I will comment on that later-and who has authority to call a meeting.
One of the disturbing aspects of the situation is that no provision is made, either explicit or implied, for committee members to hold such meetings as may be necessary in order to report back to the permit holders who elected them. Previously there was a six-man advisory committee and the members were nominated by the western co-operatives and the farmers' union. It was not mandatory under

April 26, 1976
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2) the act that they be selected in this manner but that was the practice followed, and it was possible under those circumstances for the members of the former committee to have a means of reporting back to the producers. All the members of the advisory committee were elected officers of farm organizations which were controlled by the producers. A method of reporting to farmers and bringing forward information respecting producers' opinions to the minister or the administrators of the Wheat Board was established.
The advisory committee members who will be elected under the new procedure may not be attached to farm organizations in an official capacity, and since they are nominated and elected we submit that provision should be made for them to be responsible directly to the producers in all respects. It seems to us that if the new committee is to function effectively, there must be provision for it to have the ability to report back to its constituents in the same way as a member of parliament. There must be provision for members of the committee to hold meetings and contact directly the individual producer or collectively contact producers in the regions they represent in the Wheat Board area.
It should also be possible for farmers in the constituency to initiate meetings if the need should arise and if they wish to meet with a member of the advisory committee. There should also be provision for the advisory committee to have a meeting called upon its own request. Provision should be made whereby the advisory committee, either unanimously or by a quorum of five or six members, could request the board to call a meeting of the committee. It should then be obligatory for the board to do so.
The legislation provides that the board shall call six meetings per year of the advisory committee. What would happen if some matter arose which members of the advisory committee thought was so urgent and important that an extra meeting was required? It seems to us that the advisory committee, through either a majority or a quorum, should be able to request a meeting, and that it should be obligatory on the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board to call such a meeting. It should not be left just to the board or just to the limitation of the act providing for six meetings per year. If the members of the advisory committee feel there should be three or four meetings more than that during the course of a year, the legislation should allow it to happen. It should not be just at the whim of the minister or the Canadian Wheat Board.
If a majority of the advisory committee members feel that additional meetings are warranted, this bill should make provision for that and the members should be paid their pay and allowances. The committee should not be put in the position of being suspected of being nothing more than a puppet for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board or being at the beck and call of the Canadian Wheat Board. Some degree of autonomy and freedom of action of the advisory committee should be in the legislation. Unless something of this nature is provided for the committee, it will look too much like some sort of pussy cat for the board.

The bill proposes to amend section 10 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act and it lays out in full detail how the advisory committee shall be elected, how it shall be constituted, and so forth. It is to be constituted by regions, or what I choose to call constituencies, which each advisory board member will represent. The legislation provides that this shall be arrived at by the governor in council. I wonder why this could not be done by the redistribution commissioner who works on the boundaries of federal constituencies for members of parliament. Why cannot this be done by the redistribution commissioner, or at least by the Canadian Wheat Board itself? I ask that because, frankly, I would feel nervous if the decision as to the areas which members of the advisory committee will represent were left in the hands of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and his cabinet colleagues. I think I have good reason for that nervousness. I do not see why the governor in council should be the body to have responsibility for determining the boundaries of the constituencies of the members of the advisory committee.
The expenses and allowances paid to members of the advisory committee should be sufficient to allow them to incur what could be considered reasonable costs for travelling about the constituencies they represent, holding meetings and reporting back to their constituents, the grain producers who are the permit holders they represent. It seems to us that this should be a two-way street of communication, not only from the bottom up but from the top down. The advisory committee should be able to report back to those permit holders who are grain producers and tell them how much of their advice is being taken by the Canadian Wheat Board, by the minister or by both of them, and how much of it is being ignored. I submit that the grain producers have a right to know just what effect the advice of the advisory committee will have on the minister and the Canadian Wheat Board.
Having an advisory committee democratically elected by grain producers will be of little use if the grain producers have no way of knowing whether that committee is of any benefit to them, or whether the minister or the Canadian Wheat Board is paying any attention to it. Is this just going to be window-dressing, something which makes it appear as if the Canadian Wheat Board is drawing upon the best possible advice from the grain producers' representatives and using it? This two-way communication should be built into the legislation, which means allowing each member of the advisory committee sufficient expenses in order to report back to the grain producers he represents.
The legislation also provides for the continuing of grain deliveries from an existing crop year into a new crop year. There is nothing new about this. The minister is just making it formally possible in the legislation, but in many previous crop years the Canadian Wheat Board, grain companies, railroads and everyone just turned a blind eye. We always had a saying that July 31 could be a very long day. Quota deliveries for the previous crop year were delivered on the fourth, fifth, tenth and twenty-fourth days of the new crop year, but the storage tickets, or the cash tickets which the elevator agent made out were all dated July 31. This was to allow producers who, through no fault of their own, had been unable to deliver their quotas before the expiration of the crop year, to deliver them so that all
April 26, 1976

would be fairly treated. I hope that is the intent of the minister in putting this provision into the legislation.
The third change is a proposal to amend the act by bringing in an addition after section 32. Under the provisions of the new legislation, the Board could select certain grades, a minimum of two, and form a separate pool in any crop year. The purpose of this is to permit the setting up of separate pools for malting barleys so that the premiums now paid can be passed directly to the producers. This proposal also provides for the setting up of separate pools for separate classes of wheat such as Durum and winter wheat. We generally support that idea. However, I want to caution the minister and the House that while we support the idea of separate pools in the case of malting barleys and in some instances two or more grades of wheat, I hope the minister and the board will not allow this separate pooling to be carried on to such an extent that one of the major reasons for the existence of the Canadian Wheat Board is rendered useless.
One of the reasons for having a Wheat Board was that returns from the sale of grains would be pooled so that all producers would benefit relatively equally. Another reason was that bad weather or poor export markets would not cause one group of producers in any part of the Wheat Board area to be treated less fairly than those in another part of the Wheat Board area. I wonder whether the allowing of separate pooling for not less than two grades should be made something like not less than three grades. I wonder if this would prevent any narrowing down or pooling just for special areas which, I submit, could then weaken one of the main principles behind having the Wheat Board. The idea of doing this with malting barley is good, although I am concerned about the two-grade limit. That ought to be the minimum limit, otherwise we could destroy the very purpose for the existence of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Something which has happened in connection with malting barley in the last two crop years, and possibly before then, concerns me greatly. I am thinking of producers who have special permits to deliver carload lots of malting barley. Sometimes the Canadian Wheat Board or a grain company will phone a producer with a special permit for a carload lot of malting barley and ask him to deliver, but that producer must haul to another shipping point on another railway line because the railway company has abandoned temporarily the railway line serving him.
That has been the experience of hundreds of producers in the past two crop years. It happened in my own constituency before Christmas. The railway had shut down one line for over a month and announced it would not open it for two more months. Several producers within the area had carload lots which had to be delivered by December 20. But there were no trains. Consequently, the farmers were told to haul the grain an extra 20 or 40 miles one way. The extra trucking cost gobbled up any premium they might have earned from their malting barley. There is not much point establishing a separate pool for malting barley if in hundreds of cases the premium the farmer would earn from delivering a carload lot of malting barley is used to meet extra trucking costs, costs incurred because the rail line is not functioning.
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)
If this is allowed to continue there will not be much in the pool to divide among farmers. It has happened in dozens of instances all over the three prairie provinces. The railways have allowed their railway lines to deteriorate. The rail lines are in a disgraceful condition. Trains have not run over some of them for months on end. Then, when a grain producer receives an order or a special order of the kind I have mentioned, he cannot ship from his own shipping point. Consequently, many Canadian Wheat Board shipping orders are left unfilled and the efficiency of the Canadian Wheat Board, the pool system, the block system, unit trains, etc., is effectively harmed.
In my constituency there is a line which had not carried a train for over three months. The railway had allowed the condition of the line to deteriorate. Many producers served by that line could not fill outstanding Canadian Wheat Board shipping orders. There were a number of carload lots of malting barley and odd carload orders for commodities such as rapeseed which could not be shipped by rail. There were over 200 outstanding regular Wheat Board shipping orders. In other words, five or six trainloads of orders could not be filled because that line was not operating.
The railway company would not run a train over the line in the winter. When the matter was raised with the minister and his officials, they said that winter is not a good time to run trains because there is a lot of snow. I point out that last winter was not a hard winter and the line could have stayed open. Not enough snow fell to block a gopher hole, let alone the railway track. The government used snow as an excuse. That was the reason for not running a train on a line about 120 miles long.
It should be pointed out to the minister, since he was involved with this, that if the ground under the track is in bad condition and if your rails are weak because the ties and rails have been insufficiently maintained, the time to run trains on that track is in winter when the ground is frozen. But no, the CPR had to have its own way. The railway closed the line for three or four months because, allegedly, it was snow-covered. So no trains ran over it in the winter months. But the line was also closed in the spring because the ground was soft. You end up with trains not running on branch lines until May or even mid-June. Sometimes people served by branch lines do not see a train on the line for as long as six months.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) suggested that an impossible task has been handed to Mr. Justice Hall. That is perfectly true. I do not know why the task was given to him in the first place. The railway companies should not have been allowed to abandon any rail lines. They should have been told that they will not be allowed to abandon any line until the facts are ascertained and Mr. Justice Hall advises or rules that a certain line can be closed. As I say, it should be the commission's task to decide whether, and which, rail lines should be abandoned. The commission will have an awkward task deciding if a rail line should be abandoned as the railway companies can argue that certain rail lines are already abandoned, so to speak, up to four months each year. The railways have allowed lines to deteriorate so much that they can argue, justifiably, that it is economic suicide to repair them, even if the commission decides to keep them open. The costs will seem horrendous to the
12872

April 26, 1976
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2) railways and to the minister, and the government could well choose to ignore the recommendations of the Hall commission.
We submit that the legislation ought to be broader. Let me repeat something my party has been saying since 1935. Of course we shall argue for improved provisions when the bill is considered in committee. The bill ought to contain provisions which will broaden and strengthen the responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board. All parties in this House support the existence in principle of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is like motherhood; nobody dares oppose the existence of the Canadian Wheat Board. But certain things done have tended to weaken the authority of the board and lessen its importance and strength.
We want the legislation to give the Canadian Wheat Board full jurisdiction over feed grains. The minister may argue that the farmer should be free to decide where to sell, that is, whether to sell on the open market or to the Canadian Wheat Board. To that I say that the farmers have over-whelmingly shown how they choose. Little feed grain is delivered and sold on the open market. That speaks well for the almost unanimous support western grain producers have shown for the Canadian Wheat Board. Their choice answers the contentions of those who want to cling to the outdated and outmoded free market concept in feed grains. I do not see why we should pander to them. We believe that full jurisdiction over feed grains should be returned to the Canadian Wheat Board. This piddling around with small lots of feed grain on the open market is of no benefit to most grain producers of western Canada.
I say that we should broaden and strengthen the responsibilities of the Wheat Board. This bill ought to do something we have advocated since the early 1930s, that is, put all grains under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. This means bringing commodities like flax, rye and rapeseed under the board's jurisdiction so that no significant quantities of grain in Canada are left to the whim of the grain speculators and the so-called open markets of Chicago, Minneapolis, Omaha, Winnipeg, and so on. In short, the Canadian Wheat Board should be the sole agency for dealing with all grains produced by western Canadian farmers. Farm organizations have been urging this for decades, as have certain members of parliament. But the government continues to ignore us. We say that this bill should bring under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board flax, rye and rapeseed. We will continue to fight for that.
In summary, when the bill gets to committee I ask the minister to make provision that whenever a quorum or majority of the advisory committee wants to have meetings in addition to the six provided for in the legislation, it is obligatory on the part of the board to call such meetings. In that way, no one could suggest that the advisory committee is a puppet of the minister for the Canadian Wheat Board. It would have some autonomy, some freedom of action. If circumstances arise where the advisory committee feels a meeting is warranted, the legislation should allow for that. The committee should not be limited to six meetings. Provision should be made for the payment of fees, allowances and expenses of the advisory committee meetings in those instances.

We hope that in committee the minister will tell us what he and the governor in council have in mind with regard to the drafting of regulations under amended section 10.5 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. We will be interested in knowing the ground rules for defining the borders of the electoral districts, as they are called in the legislation. What does the government have in mind with regard to the other provisions under that section? We would like some detail. Unless we have some idea of that, the minister and the governor in council could unwittingly cause things to happen that in effect detract from the need of and purpose for the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee. I hope that in committee the minister will be willing to discuss the government's intentions with regard to regulations under the amended section 10.5 as contained in Bill C-88.
In conclusion, we support the legislation in principle. We hope the minister will consider changes of the kind I have mentioned. Further, we hope the minister will take the committee into his confidence and give us the details of what he has in mind with regard to implementing the provisions of this bill by order in council.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words with respect to this bill. Our party really has no objection to the bill. I was pleased to hear the minister say he would welcome constructive criticism on various aspects of it. I am concerned primarily with clause 4. We agree with the concept of the advisory committee. It has an important role to play in the function of the Wheat Board. However, what is most important to me is that the advisory committee be made up of actual producers. Section 10.5(3) reads as follows:
The governor in council may make regulations respecting the conduct of an election of members of the advisory committee and in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations...
(c) prescribing the qualifications of members of the advisory committee and of actual producers for the purposes of section 10-
What has happened here is that the governor in council is given the responsibility of naming the members of the advisory committee. I can visualize a situation where we could end up with members on the committee who are not actual producers. There may not be anything wrong with that, but it is an aspect that should be looked at when the bill is in committee. If, after hearing evidence from organizations and individuals, it is the feeling of the committee that members of the advisory committee must be actual producers, the bill should be changed so that it provides that members of the advisory committee shall be producers.
We have a situation here, as we often have, where the details are not spelled out in the bill. We are governed by regulations at the whims and fancies of the governor in council. Parliament is not given the opportunity of making the decision. If it is put in the legislation by parliament, there can be no changes. As members know, regulations can be changed as often as the governor in council or the cabinet wish. I quote from a news release dated March 10, 1976, page 2, where the minister is shown as saying:
I have always thought that the lt-member advisory committee should be chosen from amongst farmers, with farmers themselves having a direct vote in their selection. It was with this thought in mind that I authorized the first election of the members of the advisory committee in 1975; the successful candidates in that election were subsequently
April 26, 1976

appointed to the committee by the governor in council as required by the act.
If it is the feeling of the minister that the members should be chosen from among the farmers, he should bring in an amendment at the committee stage to make it law. The minister has stated that he would like constructive criticism. I criticise the bill by making that suggestion. Clause 2, with regard to deferred delivery permits, is interesting. The explanatory note reads:
The purpose of this amendment is to correct errors in the present act.
If you compare the clause in the bill with the section in the act, the only change is changing the word "grain" in the original section to "wheat". I would like to know whether it is the intention that from now on deferred permits will only be granted for wheat. If you read the interpretation in the main bill, "grain" includes several types of grain. It includes wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax and rapeseed. By amending the section and changing it from "grain" to "wheat", unless you can stretch your imagination to say that "wheat" includes all these other grains, you end up in a situation where deferred delivery permits are only granted in the case of wheat. That will have to be looked into at the committee stage.
Clause 4 was included to remedy the situation that occurred in the 1974-75 crop year regarding malting barley. I and many other members of this House received letters from producers in the west complaining about the treatment they received with regard to their malting barley sales. I wish to quote from a typical letter that I received. It is from the town of Macrorie and is dated March 8:
Dear Mr. Neil:
I sold 1,854 bushels of barley in the 1974-75 crop year. This barley was accepted as malting barley but was graded as No. 1 feed. I have found out that the Wheat Board sold this barley at only 10 cents a bushel less than 2-CW malting barley. I would like to know why I received only 18 cents as a final payment, while producers with 2-CW barley received 99 cents a bushel. I do not think this kind of treatment is very fair. I also think that this mismanagement has to be stopped and producers in my situation should be reimbursed for the money they should have rightly received.
Instituting a separate malting pool will not help me now. I have been treated unjustly and would like to see the situation clarified. I do hope you can help me.
Mr. Speaker, my understanding, on the basis of information I have received from the minister's office and from the Wheat Board, is that in the 1974-1975 crop year there was a shortage of malting barley, the result being that maltsters purchased No. 1 feed barley from the Wheat Board to cover the shortage. Approximately one-third of the feed barley sold to the Wheat Board was sold as malting barley to the maltsters. The premium on malting barley during that period was approximately $1 a bushel.
If we look at the annual report of the Wheat Board for the crop year 1974-75, we find that No. 1 CW six-row barley realized an over-all payment of $3.26 per bushel, whereas No. 1. feed realized $2.33, approximately 90 cents a bushel less. The difference in grades 2 and 3 ranged from 90 cents to $1 a bushel. This is what individual producers are complaining about, and I can understand their feelings. I can also understand the problem faced by the Wheat Board
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2) in trying to straighten out this situation, and it is for this reason we welcome the amendments contained in the bill.
The minister realized there was a problem, because he wrote to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart) with reference to a specific situation, stating:
To overcome this problem in the current year and in future crop years I introduced in parliament on March 8 an amending bill which, when approved, will enable the establishment of a separate pool for selected barley. I am enclosing for your information my press release of March 10 concerning this matter. As you are aware, changing the pooling system of the Canadian Wheat Board is not a simple matter which can be achieved overnight at the whim of myself or the board. The present system is regulated by the Canadian Wheat Board Act and in order to change that system and establish a separate pool for malting barley legislative amendments to the act must first be drafted, then considered and approved by parliament. Once the bill introduced on March 8 is approved, the returns to the board for barley which is selected and accepted by maltsters will be deposited in a separate pool. The final payment for No. 1. feed barley which was selected and accepted as malting barley will therefore fully reflect the board's selling price to the maltsters .. . The amendment will be retroactive to deliveries of malting barley in the current crop year.
So the present crop year, 1976-77, will be covered. Mr. Speaker, I have read carefully clause 4 of the bill which presumably refers to barley although I see no mention of barley in it. I know the minister will say that as far as this clause is concerned, wheat is barley; but this seems strange to me. Talk to anyone in western Canada and they will tell you that wheat is wheat and barley is barley.


An hon. Member:: And never the twain shall meet.


Douglas Charles Neil: For the life of me I cannot understand why, when amending the act, we should be called upon to say that wheat means barley. Nevertheless, that is the situation in the bill before us and it is typical of a lot of the legislation brought before the House. We do not call things by their proper names. We do not call a spade a spade: we might call it a manual, earth-moving machine. I cannot understand why in this bill it should be necessary to call barley, wheat. Part of the original Wheat Board legislation deals with oats and barley, and it seems to me it would be simple to amend that portion of the legislation so that pooling arrangements could apply. Otherwise, if the minister feels it is not possible, let us call barley by its true name and not call it wheat.
As things are, the ordinary individual reading this bill is likely to be confused. I should like to see the entire Wheat Board Act put into a form in which it is understood by the average individual, so that farmers would have no need to consult a solicitor to determine what a particular section meant.
I am sure the barley producers of western Canada will welcome the amendments contained in this bill. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) told us a few minutes ago that he would like to see included in the bill provisions for a protein grading system which would ensure that those who produce high protein crops would obtain a premium for their production. We all know that the board, when disposing of this high quality grain on world markets, receives a premium amounting to around 35 cents a bushel. I appreciate it can be argued that the pooling arrangement is fair to all, but generally speaking those in the high protein growing areas get lower yields than those who grow low protein wheat in the
21804-5 3Vz

Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2) wetter areas. I believe it would even out in the long run. Many farmers in western Canada are clamouring for changes in the system so that they can receive a premium for their high grade protein product.
As I said earlier, I am looking forward to seeing the bill sent to committee and having the opportunity to question the minister and his officials with respect to specific clauses. The minister has told us he is prepared to accept criticism, and I hope he is prepared to make changes if he considers that criticism to be constructive.


Mr.  J. H. Homer@Crowfoot: Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the debate on Bill C-88 and say a few words with regard to some of the changes suggested to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Some years ago the Canadian Wheat Board Act was renewed on a ten-year basis. In practice it came up for renewal every ten years. Two years ago the government of the day suggested that this was wrong and wanted to demonstrate its good faith in the Wheat Board by making the act permanent and doing away with the ten-year review. Since that demonstration of good faith we have seen major changes in the operation of the Wheat Board, some of which I greatly fear are to the detriment not only of the board but of the farmers in western Canada.
I always believed that the primary function of the Wheat Board was to ensure equal market opportunities and fair treatment for the farmers of western Canada. The quota system is perhaps one of the ways in which this clear and equal opportunity can be demonstrated to the farmers of western Canada; yet the authority of the Wheat Board and its ability to provide fair and equal service to the farmers of western Canada is being eroded.
The minister has come along with a feed grains proposal which allows for the open market buying of grain but which has not clearly demonstrated a pricing system for open market grain. It is a "Guess and by God" proposal which is supposed to hinge upon the initial payment plus the expected future payment. Sometimes it is relevant and sometimes it is not. It has brought about high feed grain prices for the cattle producers of western Canada, and this has caused them hardship in what might be called a very difficult period for the cattle feeding industry.
It has also caused a great deal of difficulty to the grain producers because it has tied up a great deal of storage, particularly at Vancouver. Having to keep open quota grain and Wheat Board grain in storage at Vancouver for the grain companies-really for the farmers-has caused duplication of storage of grain and has tied up bins. The Canadian Wheat Board now comes along and tells the farmers of western Canada that they are going to dock, or deduct from the final payment a certain amount of money in order to encourage the building of storage at Vancouver.
I,	personally, regret that the Wheat Board had to take this unilateral action of using the farmers' money to build storage at Vancouver. I think that the government and the grain companies could have done this on their own. I well remember the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), boasting in Calgary during the 1972 election that the government was

concentrating on overhauling Vancouver harbour and building greater storage facilities there. Well, Mr. Speaker,
I happened to look up some figures, to be found in Hansard of February 5, 1972, which indicated that the government had spent very little money in Vancouver, that in fact the amount of money spent in Vancouver between 1967 and 1972 had gone down drastically. Yet Vancouver handles something like 30 per cent of the total tonnage moving into Canada through National Harbours Board ports.
Since the minister has failed to overhaul Vancouver harbour since 1972, the Wheat Board, acting in good faith on behalf of the farmers of western Canada, have taken this task unto themselves. They have lost faith in the government and in the Minister of Transport who acts and speaks for the Wheat Board in the House of Commons. I think there is great need for further space in Vancouver because of the complicated manipulations that are involved in an open quota grain system and a Wheat Board quota system for grain. The situation will only be further complicated unless somehow or other in the regulations governing malting barley a definite grade is approved by the maltsters.
Anybody who has attempted to sell malting barley in the past knows that you can take one load of grain out of the granary and it will go malting. Yet the very next load will not go malting. What does this mean in terms of dollars and cents, Mr. Speaker? In the past year it means something like 78 cents a bushel. One farmer can sell grain as malting barley consistently. Another farmer just across the road might well believe he has harvested grain with the same low protein content, with no peel or broken kernels, yet he cannot get malting barley.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I completely agree that there should be a separate pool for malting barley, but the Wheat Board at the same time should establish quite clearly a number of things. First of all, it should make quite clear that the maltsters can buy their malting barley only from the Wheat Board. If that is not made clear, the grain companies-and I fear the international grain companies because of their skill in marketing-might well be a jump ahead of the pool and in their search for customers might well use their ability to sell malting barley to the maltsters and give them a premium of some 78 or 80 cents a bushel. This would mean that the co-ops and other Canadian-owned grain companies would not be able to make sales to the maltsters.
Secondly, the Canadian Wheat Board should quite clearly lay down what in essence passes for malting barley and what does not. It should not be left to the maltsters to decide what they will accept as malting barley and what they will not accept, because I fear favouritism and that the big farmers will get the advantage over the little farmers. For example, if the maltsters want 5,000 or 10,000 bushels of grain and they can buy it all from one farmer, all from the same sample, there will be a tendency to do so. It will mean that the big farmers will get the 78 to 80 cents a bushel premium and that the small farmers will not have an equal opportunity to get the same premium.
We must always remember, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of setting up the Canadian Wheat Board was to ensure equality and fair treatment for the prairie farmers. I have seen the erosion of this equality during the past
April 26, 1976

number of years under this minister who now speaks for the Canadian Wheat Board. While I am in complete support of a separate pool for malting barley, I see the danger of further erosion of a guarded principle that I think most farmers treasure-that of equality and fair treatment. If necessary, steps must be taken to establish a couple of clear principles-that the Wheat Board is the only body to sell to the maltsters and that the Wheat Board sets the quality or grade of malting barley, not the maltsters themselves.
While speaking on this question, I might say that I am a long-time believer in a separate pool for high protein grades and that growers of high protein wheat should get a premium. It is a well known and established fact that the farmers in northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta are more likely to grow malting barley. This is low protein barley and has a better chance of success in the area owing to the climate in that part of the country. Barley in that area has a better chance of having no peel or broken kernels.
The very opposite is true with regard to the protein grading of wheat. It is a well known fact that farmers in southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta have a tendency to grow high protein wheat. High protein wheat is grown in what is commonly referred to as the Palliser triangle. Farmers in the Palliser triangle should get a bonus or premium for growing high protein wheat. In the past year this would have amounted to 33 cents to 35 cents per bushel. That also should be kept separate so that this premium would be paid. The net result of paying the premium on high protein wheat would be an encouragement to produce high protein wheat, and the net result of paying the premium on malting barley in a fair manner would be an encouragement to produce malting barley.
These two factors would also decrease the subsidization that now occurs in the pooling system that has been in place in the past. The premium on high protein wheat has gone into a general pool, has been divied up and has tended to maintain a higher average price for low grade wheat. The premium on malting barley has gone into a general pool with feed barley and has tended to maintain a higher average price for low or what one might call feed barley. These two facts tend to keep the price of feed grain high on the prairies. With these grains separated out, the feed grain would bring a price more comparable with what the feeding industry is prepared, willing and able to pay. I suggest this should be done.
Before this bill is passed-and I hope this is the intention of the minister-we should allow the committee to call members of the Canadian Wheat Board before it to answer a number of questions that ought to be asked. Is the open feed grain policy causing congestion at the terminals? If that is the case, as the railroads claim, we should examine that policy. That is one question I should like to ask. It has always been my belief that an open feed grains policy was designed to aid the sale of feed grains domestically rather than internationally. Why, then, is it causing congestion at the ports and terminals? This particular question should be aired and examined very thoroughly by the committee on agriculture. When this bill goes to the committee it will provide an opportunity for examination.
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)
Canada Malting Co. Ltd. is one of the largest buyers of malting barley. Who owns that company? Is it true that Molson's and Labatt's have members on the board of directors of Canada Malting Co. Ltd.? Does this not bring about a conflict of interest regarding the price to be paid for malt, which in turn reflects the price to be paid for malting barley? Do the maltsters and Canada Malting seriously desire to export malt to the United States and other countries? Surely, with our ability to produce malting barley, we should be prepared to export malt to a greater extent than has been the case in the past.
Surely, it would be desirable to bring about a fair grading system for malting barley so that it could clearly be identified on each occasion and not be at the whim of the malting companies. In this way, malting barley would be clearly identifiable by farmers, grain companies and the Canadian Wheat Board. They would then know what ingredients make a sample of barley qualify for the premium.
It is a well-known fact that farmers have sent in a sample of what they felt was malting barley which has been rejected, and then sent in the same sample two weeks later and had it passed as malting barley and shipped the same carload. If we are to pay an 80-cent premium, we must have a more definitive system than the one that exists. If we do not, we will cause even more dissatisfaction over the long haul. Certainly there is a great deal of dissatisfaction today on the part of farmers who grow malting barley. They resent very much losing out on the 78-cent or 80-cent premium.
The province of Alberta grows over 50 per cent of the barley that qualifies for malting, and therefore it is the duty of Alberta members particularly to point out that our farmers want that premium. We want that premium paid to those farmers who have the capability of growing malting barley, and we want the small farmer to have an equal opportunity with the large farmer in qualifying for the premium.
Members of the Wheat Board and of the Board of Grain Commissioners should be called before the committee to clearly state that they can set up a grading principle or system which in essence will be satisfactory to the trade and, most importantly, to the producers who are to receive the premium.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) suggested that in 1974-75, 18 million bushels were bought as No. 1 feed and sold as malting barley. This is a clear case of the grain companies picking up the 80-cent premium. This is another reason the grading system has to be clearly understood by the farmers so they can prevent the grain companies from what amounts to stealing the premium. The grain company can buy up the barley as No. 1 feed, send in a sample or a mixed sample later on and qualify for the malting barley premium. It is of paramount importance that we set up a fair grading system for malting barley.
It is extremely important that the Canadian Wheat Board be given sole authority to handle malting barley under a clearly defined grading system. It is also important that the premium should be paid on high protein wheat. These two points should be made to representatives of the
April 26, 1976

Private Members' Motions
Wheat Board who come before the committee on agriculture to discuss this bill.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-Supply and Services-Lockheed contract-Arrangements for interim financing; the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-Airports-Pickering_Plans for use of land in view of abandonment of
construction plans; the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston)-External Affairs-Cambodia- Request for report on alleged violations of human rights- Suggested withdrawal of aid.
It being five o'clock, pursuant to order made on February 27, 1976, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Standing Order 19(1) applies. Notice of motion No. 2, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Shall the motion stand?


Mr. Alexander:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government. Notice of motion No. 15, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan). Shall the motion stand?


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government. Notice of motion No. 19, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). Shall the motion stand?


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government. Notice of motion No. 20, in the name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker). Shall the motion stand?


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government. Notice of motion No. 4. Shall the motion stand?


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government. Notice of motion No. 45, in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). Shall the motion stand?


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government.


OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider amending the Old Age Security Act to grant the Minister of National Health and Welfare the discretionary power to make retroactive payments under the Old Age Security Act to the date at which a person has attained the age of 65 years regardless of the date on which an application is received when it is shown that an applicant has failed to apply at the proper time due to sickness, justifiable ignorance, absence or for other serious and similar reasons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention very early in my career as part of the government team that in respect of old age security there is a matter which has been of concern not only to me but, I am sure, to other members of the government and of the opposition. This concern relates to people who for some reason or other do not realize the advantages available to them in respect of the old age security pension and are not given the opportunity after one year has elapsed to have it made available to them. In such a case, obviously they lose at least one year's pension, a pension for which they have fully qualified.
I think the care of our senior citizens has become a passion for many of us. Obviously, the government has played a part in this. Representatives from countries all over the world come to Canada to study our social programs. I think we should realize that our senior citizens are the people who participated in the process of making this country great. In many ways it is because of our people who are retired that we have today a free, democratic system. Obviously, this has added to the greatness of Canada and for many of us has added to the quality of our respect not only for the old people but for the country in which we live.
The Liberal government, through its foresight and concern for not just the old people, or the senior citizens as they are now called, has over the period of its history brought in many social programs. I am afraid that on many occasions the government has neither taken nor received credit for this. At this time I think perhaps I should refer
April 26, 1976

to the credit the government should receive. Frequently in the newspapers we read of the problems governments face. Because they are governments they are criticized. However, let us look at the other side of the coin because it is obvious this has not been drawn to the attention of the people of Canada.
On many occasions we have heard of the great strides taken by the New Democratic Party, but we have not seen too much evidence of this. This is because the liberal government has won the elections. Why has the Liberal government won the elections? Is it because it has come in with promises before election time? No. It is because the Liberal government has shown the people of Canada that it listens to them and is concerned about the people of Canada both young and old. It is also because of the fact that the representations which are made to the people are acceptable to the people.
One problem in respect of this particular legislation has been the lack of retroactive payment after one year. Let us take a look at some of the reasons and some of the people who are affected by this loophole. We are very fortunate in Canada and in my riding that we have many senior citizens. The people who send congratulations to these people are amazed that some of them are 80, 90 or 100 years of age and have been married for 40, 50 or 60 years.
If I were asked why there are so many of these peop'e in my riding, I think I would say that although it is neither a riding in which there is great poverty or great prosperity, it is one in which the older people had to work long and hard for a living. They did not have the benefit of the social security programs that are available now. They had to work in order to provide a strong base for future generations. Not all of us, when we reach age 65, will be able to say we will retain 100 per cent of our faculties. Many do, but others are less fortunate. I think we must have concern for these people.
Back in the so-called old days when our society was not as mobile as it is now, the children were around the family or were in very close proximity to their parents. In many cases the parents lived in their children's homes. Now, in this mobile society, when the children grow up they have great prospects right across Canada. Many of the children look for jobs outside the proximity of their homes. When the parents reach age 65 they do not have the opportunity to go to their children and ask what they should do in respect of a certain form. They know they are entitled to the old age pension but they are not sure how to get it. Not always in all areas are offices available to such people. It would be nice to say that they could go to any town in Canada to obtain the necessary information.
We must also realize that people 65 years of age have pride. This is not a false pride. They have pride in the fact that they have gone through life supporting their children, paying their bills and attempting to have a comfortable living without depending on anyone. These people had self-sufficiency. They depended on themselves. With their pride, they ask themselves whether people would think they were becoming senile if they asked too many questions. I do not believe these people who have a fear of asking questions should be left out.
The department, of course, has done an excellent job; there is no question about that. However, it is difficult, if
Old Age Security
not impossible, for the government to follow up on every particular case. When these people find out that a one-year period has elapsed, I think they should be given an opportunity to reclaim the money which is justly theirs. The legislation was set up to take care of these people and provide them with an income. Periodically we all receive letters. I have here a letter from a lady who is a senior citizen. When she became 65 years of age, because of her pride-as I mentioned before-she did not apply for the pension. However, she was under the impression that she could draw it later, with accumulated interest. She thought the money would be held in trust and that she could withdraw it later. As we know, this is not the case.
I understand that this lady is now out helping other senior citizens. She has not only given of herself for 65 years, but is now 71 years of age is still going around helping people in her area who are not as well off monetarily or physically. She was under the impression that she could leave the money there or hold it in trust until it gained interest, after which she could take it out and spread it around to more people. I can mention other such cases; there are many across Canada.
Let us assume that a woman reaches the age of 65 first, and that her husband is five, six or ten months younger. All these years the assumption was that the husband was older. In the old days I suppose that meant something. They had lived together for 40 years, and on the wife's sixty-fifth birthday she did not claim her social insurance because she did not want it coming into the house, thus making it obvious to the husband that she was 65. There was a bond in that marriage, a bond which kept the marriage together for many years. It is a bond that the wife did not want to break because her husband felt she was the younger of the two. I am sure that on many occasions this happens. Wives in the old days had to be younger than the husband to get married. I am sure there are many Canadians in that category. Why should they be penalized for this? Why should they be penalized because of that bond and sincerity they had for perhaps 40 or 45 years?
I suggest it is time this legislation was either changed in some way or that discretionary power was given to the minister. This could be done very simply and it would show the sincerity and concern we feel, not only for the ones who apply for and receive social security but for all Canadians whom we want to enjoy the opportunities which Canada offers and which they so richly deserve.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the previous speaker, has suggested that the legislation on old age security should be amended in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the motion which my colleague has presented certainly has a great deal of attraction, but I would like to examine carefully the implications of the measure he is proposing. At present an applicant has a period of two years within which it is possible for him to file an application, one year preceding his sixty-fifth birthday and one

April 26, 1976
Old Age Security
year subsequent to it during which the law permits the payment of retroactive benefits for as long as 12 months.
The motion introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon), is intended to permit payment of a lump sum benefit equal to at least 13 or more times the monthly amount of the benefits payable under the Old Age Security Act. Such a proposal does not really fit one of the basic objectives of the old age security program, namely, that it is an income security program for older persons designed to provide a basic current income on retirement to residents of Canada. The program is intended to provide a regular flow of income to enable those who might not have had the opportunity to set aside savings during their working careers on which to live in retirement, to meet the daily expenses of an adequate standard of living on a current basis.
The guaranteed income supplement further enforces this objective by providing additional moneys monthly for those who can demonstrate that the flow of cash receipts they have obtained within the period of the past year or less is insufficient to meet their immediate maintenance needs. I should like to say that the program is not designed to be a long-term savings plan or to provide benefit options to meet different contingencies. It is available to all eligible applicants for day to day living needs, but is not a method of capital accumulation for later withdrawal.
The requirement that an application be filed before benefits are paid is essential to the operation of the old age security program since, if potential applicants do not come forward, it would be virtually impossible to identify and locate those who are eligible in order to begin the payment of benefits. At present, an application for benefits may be filed well before eligibility for pension commences, although for administrative reasons persons are advised not to apply more than one year in advance, as I said earlier. For those who might miss the eligibility date, up to 12 full months of retroactive benefits may be paid, as I have indicated. Thus, a potential recipient has at least a full two years within which to file an application without any loss of benefits whatsoever.
It has been shown that of the Canadian population in general, 95 per cent are familiar with the old age security program. Because of their greater interest, it is not unreasonable to assume that the awareness of the program is even higher among the population approaching retirement age. My colleague, in his motion, itemized a number of circumstances which he feels would justify the increased retroactive payment of benefits. One of these is absence.
All hon. members are aware of the fact that an application for old age security benefits can only be accepted and approved from a non-resident of Canada if that person had previously resided in Canada for at least 40 years after reaching the age of 18. Therefore, in many cases an application cannot be accepted or a benefit paid to a person who is out of the country. I trust that my colleague is not suggesting that this clause should serve as a means whereby persons whose non-residence in Canada would normally disentitle them to benefits would be able to circumvent the eligibility reuqirements by applying for benefits retroactively and pleading absence.
For those persons who would be eligible to apply for benefits from abroad, the fact that they are required to

have lived in Canada for 40 years of their adult life means that they could not have left this country before the age of 58. As I mentioned earlier, they would have a full two years or more within which to remind themselves of the need to apply for the benefit and submit the application, without any loss of old age security benefits. Even our much maligned postal service would no doubt be equal to the task of delivering an application within 24 months from the very farthest corner of the globe.
Sickness is another circumstance where this greater retroactivity would apply under my colleague's suggestion. As we have heard, under the current old age security legislation a special provision is made whereby a person who cannot apply for benefits on his own behalf because of infirmity, illness or any other good reason may have someone else apply for him. Also, when a person is not sufficiently mobile to visit one of the many Old Age Security or Canada Pension Plan offices across the country, representatives of these offices will make home visits-a service which few ill persons can expect even from their doctors these days.
Justifiable ignorance is another reason which is accepted in awarding larger retroactive benefits. "Ignorance" is a rather open-ended word. Ignorance of what? Are we speaking about ignorance of the program? If so, let us look at that question. As I said earlier, 95 per cent of the full age range of the population know about the old age security program. As personal interest in such things grows with the proximity of potential benefits, the older age groups who are thinking of retirement-let us say from 55 years and up, an age group about which I am particularly sensitive-are doubtless even more aware of the program.
Of the population aged 65 and over, more than 98 per cent are receiving old age security benefits. Of the remainder, less than 2 per cent who are not receiving the benefits-a goodly number, approaching 1.5 per cent-would not be eligible for the benefits because they do not meet the residence requirements. Others who are not receiving the benefit at one point in time, although eligible, will apply and begin to receive it within a year, and so are covered by the existing retroactivity provision.
Once we eliminate all these groups, we are left with very few potential cases. Who are the people in this group? Their most important characteristic which we should consider is their financial position. If someone over 65 is in financial need and seeks assistance from virtually any source in this country, he or she will be made aware, if they are not already, of the old age security benefits available to them. Social assistance agencies, private benefit plans, financial counsellors, retirement groups and friends all know of the program and would refer them to the old age security program. One quarter of the people over 65 who do not receive old age security do receive some other form of government transfer payment and therefore are doubtless aware of the old age security program.
Of course, in some cases pride enters into the question. My hon. friend discussed pride-pride upon which, presumably, a marriage survived over a long period of time. I understand the circumstances and I find them a little unusual. However, it is not unusual for a retired person to
April 26, 1976

refuse government income even though he or she is in need. This position can, and does, apply to old age security as much as to other public benefits. Where persons of their own free will choose not to apply for OAS benefits, as they are entitled to do, I question whether the government can or should interfere with that choice. Again, where it can be shown medically that such a choice is the result of physical or mental deterioration, some other person may apply for the benefit of behalf of the beneficiary. Finally, there are those in our society who are in the happy position of not needing OAS benefits. For these people the limit on retroactivity is not a financial hardship.
I wish to reiterate that OAS benefits are designed to provide current income to meet day to day needs. Although, as a result of various circumstances, a person may meet these needs by some other means for an extended period of time, this should not serve to transform the basic purpose of the program to that of a means of capital accumulation.
There is another type of ignorance to which we might refer. That is personal ignorance of one's own age. In a limited number of cases when people come forward to apply for OAS benefits and are asked to provide proof of age, they discover that they are older, sometimes by several years, than they had always thought themselves to be. With more accurate records, and so on, this situation will become less and less common. However, for those in this situation now the late determination of their true age means the loss of OAS benefits. Of course, this discovery will affect more than just OAS, and the interaction of a large retroactive OAS payment with other affected benefits or legislation must be considered. Payments under the Canada assistance plan, war veterans' allowances and some private pension plans are fully or partially offset by OAS benefits. A long-term retroactive payment of OAS benefits would retroactively affect the recipient's status under such programs or plans. In addition, there are the possible income tax effects of the receipt of a large cash benefit payment in any one year.
Finally, the hon. member's motion states that where an acceptable reason for late application is presented, the OAS benefit is to be paid retroactively to the date at which the person attained age 65 in all cases. I want to talk about this. Such a provision, if interpreted in the manner in which I think it could be interpreted, would introduce a far greater and more serious inequality than that which the motion purports to remedy.
Let us consider one or two possible hypothetical cases. The proposal might entitle a person to a retroactive benefit for the full period from age 65, even though had he or she applied for that benefit at age 65, he or she would not have been eligible for the payment at that time. This would occur when the applicant had ten years continuous residence at, say, age 68 and applied then for a retroactive benefit on the ground of justifiable ignorance. However, at age 65, with only seven years of residence, that same person would not have qualified for OAS.
Another example to which I referred briefly earlier is the applicant who is resident in Canada at age 68 when the application is made for the retroactive benefit, but at age 65 was living abroad and did not have long enough Canadian residence to qualify for receipt of OAS benefits abroad
Old Age Security
at that time. I must concede that these are hypothetical cases, and the hon. member who proposed the motion might well agree that it would be possible to make amendments in drafting the legislation in such a way as to make sure that the clear intent of parliament when the legislation was introduced would not be thwarted.
I suggest that there is no major inequity in the present situation. I am suggesting to hon. members that they must look at the basic objective of the program, and that is to provide a decent standard of living, so far as possible, on a current basis. The purpose of the program is not to provide a savings program, not to accumulate assets and not to accumulate credits. For these reasons, I suggest that this House might want to think fairly carefully before extending the period of retroactivity under the legislation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of becoming involved in this debate, but I was impressed with the seriousness of the hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon). I listened to him with a great deal of compassion because I have had one or two experiences in which people who for one reason or another did not apply in time or, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, within one year after having attained the age of 65.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was Ottawa West (Mr. Francis).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, I think we all know to whom I am making reference. I do have some knowledge as to the possibility of hardship, but I did not realize just how many people would be involved. I was pleased to hear that if there are any, there are not many. It is something like 5 per cent who for one reason of another were not in a position to apply for old age security. I think that is a very significant statistic.
In order to assist the hon. member who moved this motion, I suggest there might be a need for more advertising; for example, a full page ad once a year in the daily newspapers saying, "You are entitled to old age security if you can meet the following criteria." Is this being done? Perhaps it is, but not often.
As members of parliament we are responsible for advising constituents, including old age citizens, of available government programs. Certainly I try to tell my constituents that unemployment insurance is available in such and such circumstances, that old age security and the old age supplement are available in certain circumstances. Many members send their constituents newsletters, some of which are factual, but many of which are partisan. Perhaps our newsletters should be more constructive and tell constituents what is available. After all, we are concerned about people who have worked for years. They are entitled to benefits.
Why do people sometimes not apply? Well, what about the wife who is older than the husband? Perhaps she is embarrassed to admit she is 65, when her friends thought her only 55. Some do not apply because they are afraid of some possible stigma.
12880

April 26, 1976
Old Age Security


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: And others apply
automatically.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, and others apply automatically. Or there could be peculiar circumstances which inhibit an application.
The hon. member suggests in his motion that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) should be given discretionary power:
... to make retroactive payments under the Old Age Security Act to the date at which a person has attained the age of 65 years regardless of the date on which an application is received when it is shown that an applicant has failed to apply at the proper time due to sickness, justifiable ignorance, absence or for other serious and similar reasons.
Old age security gives a monthly income to the retired. The phrase in the motion "regardless of the date on which an application is received" troubles me. You see, Mr. Speaker, if we adopt this part of the motion we shall open the door for all sorts of abuse. What if a person waited five or six years before applying? He would be entitled to a lump sum payment. I do not think the original act intended that. I respect the hon. member's motives; they are grand. But there is a fault here.
The motion speaks of an applicant who fails to apply at the proper time due to sickness. Well, someone else can apply on the applicants' behalf. There are such procedures. Surely uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, even parents, of the sick can forward applications. There is entitlement to old age security if the proper application is made.
The motion then uses the word, "that an applicant has failed to apply-due to-justifiable ignorance." It is an interesting phrase, but I don't know what it means. Does it mean ignorance of the law, ignorance of this motion, or ignorance of rights? And what is "justifiable" ignorance? That is open to interpretation in court, and we all know what happens in court when lawyers argue.
The concluding words of the motion are, "-absence or for other serious and similar reasons." Absence is a tricky word. Does it apply to residency? If it does, it could frustrate the legitimate intention of the law having to do with residency periods. And the last few words, "-or for other serious and similar reasons" are merely a catch-all phrase defying definition. I say all this while conceding the hon. member's good intentions.
All this talk of senior citizens reminds me of the minister's bill which was to provide spouses' allowances. There was a great hue and cry all over this country when the bill was first introduced. Members of parliament heard from widows, widowers, single people and divorced people, those who had not reached 65 and were not married legally, and those who were 65 or over but were not able to get the allowance. After all, the idea of the supplement was to make life more tolerable. I am still getting letters about the spouses' allowance. People take a dim view of it. It seems to me that under the minister's proposal-and I say this with sincerity-people living in sin could be entitled to spouses' allowance, whereas 60-year old widows, widowers, single people and divorced people would be put out the pasture, so to speak.
The hon. member's proposal involves money; I do not know how much. He mentioned 5 per cent of the people being affected by it. Apparently 5 per cent of our people,

for some reason, do not apply for benefits. I wish the hon. member had told the House how much money his proposal would cost. These are days of restraint. Even so I recognize that, because inflation has eroded the value of our dollar, some people are in dire need of financial assistance. We ought to be concerned about them.
In my opinion the present law allows those who cannot themselves apply, or have failed to apply, one year's retroactive benefits. Really that is a lump sum payment. The government provided for a sort of trust fund and took cognizance of the kind of situation about which the hon. member is concerned. No matter when you apply, you cannot get more than one year's benefits.
I do not want to talk the motion out. The hon. member brought the motion before the House for the edification of members and their constituents. This debate has shown that we are always thinking and want to improve the lot of those who did so much to develop this country. Even so, I suggest that the number of people the motion would affect is not great.
In conclusion I say that it is our responsibility as members of parliament to advise constituents, especially people falling within the purview of the motion, of government programs set up for their benefit. As I said earlier, the government should vote money every year to advertise these programs. I do not know what it would cost, but it would be a dollar well spent if there were an advertisement, even once a year, advising people of programs such as this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon) is learning this afternoon what it is like to be a member of the opposition. He got hold of a good idea, he brought it before the House, he was hopeful it would be received favourably but has found that it is being jumped on by his friends and opponents and that in due course, it will be talked out.
If the hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton had proposed a wide open provision that would enable persons to defer taking old age security for five or ten years and then pick up a nest egg with interest and so on, that proposal might have deserved the kind of criticism that was given by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) and in part by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. However, I want to emphasize, in supporting the hon. member's idea, that he is not asking for a wide open provision. He is simply asking that in certain special cases there be more discretionary power than there is at the present time. The act now provides, and it is spelled out in the regulations under the act, that a regional director can go back at least a year. All that the hon. member is proposing is that it be possible to go back further than that in special cases.
It is possible to criticize some of the reasons the hon. member has put forward. However, all he has placed before us is a resolution. This is not the language to be put in a bill. I am sure he would agree that the language in a bill could be more restrictive.
Both of the last speakers have suggested that not very many persons are affected by this situation. I can testify to
April 26, 1976

that as well. I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa West that Canadians from 55 up pretty well know what the provisions are with respect to old age security and are ready to apply when the time comes. However, I remind the House that not many months ago the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) brought up a case of one person, a veteran, who had stayed in the United Kingdom for some years after the war. He failed to meet the precise qualifications even though he was a Canadian in all other respects. It was finally agreed by the government that, even if there were only a few cases, here was an injustice that should be corrected. That injustice has been corrected, or at least is in the process of being corrected.
I receive a great deal of correspondence about pension matters, but I have had only two persons write to me about this matter because if affects them. However, they are extremely grateful that an injustice has been corrected. That is one of the things that is great about parliament; if there is an injustice, even if it affects only a very few persons, it deserves to be corrected.
I quite agree with those who say we should not go hogwild in this. However, I believe there is room for a greater element of discretion where there is a clear, justifiable reason for a person failing to apply for old age security within the year that is now stipulated in the legislation.
Even though the hon. member many suffer the fate of other private members and see his motion talked out at six o'clock, I hope that his having raised the matter for discussion will result in its being considered in the department. If he has cases that are specific, such as those to which he referred, he would be well advised to present them to the department. Others of us should do the same so that an injustice, even to a half dozen individuals, does not remain in our statutes.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I give my general support to the intent of motion presented by the hon. member. I will refrain from participating in any talking out process. In fact all I will say before I sit down is that I am glad the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) raised an issue which most of us think is of very great importance right now. I refer to the discrimination being experienced and felt by thousands of Canadians who are spinsters, widows, bachelors, and widowers in the age bracket between 60 and 65.
When the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) brought in Bill C-62 in June, 1975, he stood in this House and said that what he was trying to do was to solve the problem of two persons living on one pension. That is his plausible excuse for this arrangement that pays a pension, on a means test basis, between 60 and 65 to a person who is married and living with a spouse over 65, but not to a person in the same age bracket who is alone. Indeed the spinster, widow, bachelor or widower in this country who is between 60 and 65 cannot understand why a pension is available to a woman of the same age who has a husband over 65, but is not available to the woman who is a widow or who is not married. That is an issue that should be corrected in this very session of parliament.
I realize this is beyond the confines of the motion before us, but each member who has had the floor so far has gone beyond those confines for a moment. I shall settle for what
Old Age Security
I have said. Although there are many things that need to be done in the pension field, one fact above all others that is annoying thousands of Canadians today is this discrimination of the spouses' allowance in that it discriminates against single persons between the ages of 60 and 65. I hope that will soon be corrected.
I sit down simply saying again that despite the rough ride the hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton has had, I hope that his bringing this issue before the House will result in the matter being considered, at least in the department.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, when I examined the motion of my hon. colleague, the member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon), it brought back a very pleasant recollection, that is the beginning of my public political life.
As for all those who are in this House, the time comes when one has to choose the political party answering one's aspirations. I obviously had the opportunity to consider the platforms of all political parties and after a thorough consideration of the Liberal platform, especially that dealing with the old age security legislation, my choice became easier. Moreover, I do not regret it, since the real intentions of the party to which I belong have been shown and continue to be shown in favour of deserving citizens who after many years of untiring work have succeeded in establishing a better community and are entitled to our consideration and more particularly to a financial assistance as subtantial as possible according to the resources of the country.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it might take too long to recall all the legislation the Liberal party has had passed in this House in the last 30 years, but it should not be pointless to mention that history reminds us it was the government which, in 1927, passed the Old Age Security Act, followed in 1952 by the old age security program.
At that time, one had to be 70 or over to be eligible. In addition, in the last decade, the steps taken by the government reflect, to my mind, in a very concrete sense, the intention of the government to resolve the various difficulties our senior citizens confront. Let me say immediately, Mr. Speaker, that we all meet on the floor of this House in a common ideal, that is ensuring our senior citizens to the greatest extent possible access to the old age security pension to which they are entitled. And I am sure that, on both sides of this House, there is no question of adopting a negative attitude towards this motion; the few words I want to say certainly are not meant to encourage unfair treatment of our senior citizens, nor to deprive them of the means or services offered to help them by the Canadian Parliament. Still, Mr. Speaker, there are basic principles we must not hesitate to discuss in this House when, for instance, it is claimed, as did my hon. friend, that the senior citizens are not responsible enough to take care of their own affairs and to make their own requests of the state, or even through intermediaries, when their health does not allow them to take advantage of the means put at their disposal by the old age security program.
21804 - 54/4

April 26, 1976
Old Age Security
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is an insult to the citizens who, during 65 years, have always behaved like responsible people and have taken care of their business, their families, their work, and who, at a certain age, are now able to take advantage of legislation introduced for their benefit.
I believe it was the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) who suggested that more complete programs, and more substantial and extensive information should be made available to all citizens so that, as the previous speaker said, no one who is entitled to it be deprived of the advantages of the old age security program. And in this regard, I agree with the hon. member who spoke before me when he said: "Even if only a few could not take advantage of the legislation, it would be unfortunate. This would be an injustice that we could not tolerate."
However, Mr. Speaker, if the motion of my hon. friend is adopted, we would have to extend the debate and apply the same provisions to other classes of citizens who have not yet reached pensionable age and who, because of a lack of training or because of illness, cannot take advantage of the other acts which have been passed for their benefit.
Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues probably know, people often tell my colleagues or myself: I did not submit a project under the local initiative program, for instance, because I was sick or because I did not know that the program would end on such or such a date. If we applied the concept of extension because of ignorance, illness or other reasons, the same concept should also be applied to all classes of citizens and all programs.
In my view this would make the government's position impossible since the discretionary power, which my hon. friend wants to place in the hands of a minister, is, I believe, an extremely delicate tool which ought to be used only in exceptional circumstances. The word "discretionary" is, in my opinion, extremely dangerous and so is the word "retroactive". I suggest that laws should be retroactive only in exceptional cases and the discretionary power used only on the rarest occasions.
Be this as it may, Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to discuss this most important subject. I think as the previous speaker mentioned that an open and sincere discussion was made possible for hon. members who are assuming their responsibilities and who, on a matter as important as the one which is before us, have adopted a constructive attitude which will enable us to try to work together to help senior citizens. They certainly deserve that we stop squabbling and start cooperating to ensure their welfare.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, at this point I should like to note the overwhelming interest of the scribes and Pharisees who occupy the seats above Your Honour.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are not Pharisees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is going to be one of your best speeches.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Thank you. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has stolen most of my speech and made it already. I wish to add my congratulations to those offered to the hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon). I believe his motion has been put forward in the true spirit of liberalism and he is to be unreservedly congratulated. I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre agrees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; because the Liberals have sat on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hour set aside for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.01 p.m. 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. Lang that Bill C-88, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act are always the subject of great interest to western farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board is a very unique institution about which Canadians should know much more. Under the Canadian Wheat Board Act of 1935 we give the power to this independent board to buy the grains of western Canada, and we give the power to this independent board to sell the grains of western Canada, so that in one sense parliament, by drawing power from the provincial governments, has delegated monopoly power to the board to sell the goods of a very large productive area of Canada, the grain growing area of the western provinces, including parts, of B.C. and Ontario.
This organization or institution is unique, as I say. Even though it has all the powers that our so-called socialist would say he stands for, of delegating to a board complete monopoly over the buying and selling of a farmer's product, actually it is not a selling board and it is not a monopoly in the real sense of the word. What the board does that makes it unique is that in turn it delegates its power to be the sole agent that buys the grain of the farmers to private enterprise. It delegates its power to the grain companies such as the great co-operatives, the Alberta Pool, the Saskatchewan Pool, the Manitoba Pool, and to
April 26, 1976

the UGG. These are supposed to be the greatest co-operatives in the world in terms of the volume of business that they do.
At the same time it delegates the power to any group of people who have enough money and responsibility to go to the Wheat Board and buy the grain from the farmers as the board's agent, so that any group of people who can collect the money have the right, under the management of the Canadian Wheat Board, to become the agent of the board and, in effect, provide competition among the buyers or agents of the board in the buying of grain from the farmers.
That is one side of the equation. When the board transfers the grain from the farmer through its agent, these private companies, it then turns the power to sell-which is a monopoly-over to a series of agents, so that any group of people, Canadian or foreign, who can prove to the Wheat Board they have the financial responsibility can become agents of the Canadian Wheat Board and sell all over the world.
I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that not only do many people across Canada not understand how the Canadian Wheat Board operates but many people in the west are uncertain too. We do not get too many opportunities to discuss the Canadian Wheat Board and the amendments made from time to time to the act.
This unique institution has worked exceptionally well. It has attempted to give to the farmers a fair price averaged over the year. The technique it uses is to give an initial payment, and when the grain is sold to give an interim or final payment, and this is averaged grade by grade.
To put the matter into perspective, I do not think there is any question but that 85 to 90 per cent of the farmers have been reasonably satisfied with the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board over the last 40 years. However, that does not mean that there has been complete satisfaction; doubts do arise from time to time.
One of the amendments in Bill C-88 which is before us is to set down the terms for electing an advisory board based on districts in the grain growing area. This is an amendment that I am positive every political party in western Canada supports. We have no choice but to congratulate the government on putting this proposal into law, and I am going to give the House some reasons why those congratulations are worth-while and necessary.
There always has been an advisory board. Under the original act power was given to the minister to appoint members to an advisory board, and as a general rule the minister picked the heads of the big grain organizations as members of the board to advise the Wheat Board. When I was minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board I added an additional person, a representative of the National Farmers' Union. Why, then, do I say that an elected advisory board is better? The reasons are very simple.
When you began to watch, observe, and assess what the old advisory board was contributing to the actions of the Wheat Board you got the strong impression that the advisory board you had appointed yourself, made up of the heads of the big grain companies, was in fact very friendly
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2) and cosy with members of the Canadian Wheat Board. They were there representing not only their farmers and their organizations, they were representing the businesses they managed, and as managers they were very anxious to have this system work smoothly and efficiently. You rarely got criticism from these people about the actions of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Remember what I said earlier-the Canadian Wheat board selected these companies as its agents. Therefore it was a meeting really of top management, the Canadian Wheat Board and the advisory board which was in effect the agent of the Canadian Wheat Board. It was naturally a cosy relationship.
The great grain companies are very large and they make good returns. Their first responsibility to their rank and file is to maintain the profit margin they have obtained through the handling of grain. I got the impression, as the minister watching their activities, that this was not really the type of advice I thought the farmers deserved when they had to rely on the Canadian Wheat Board. That is the reason why I added the farm unions, hoping they would represent these farmers in a better way, not having a vested interest and not having a great army of country or seaboard terminals to manage. Even this was not too strong a representation for the simple reason that we soon found out the National Farmers' Union rarely disagreed with the wheat pools.
Therefore I say with all sincerity to the minister that by putting this board in as an elected board, giving the farmers directly a chance to elect their representatives to advise the Wheat Board, he is going to get a little more independent type of advice as well as criticism of the Canadian Wheat Board. Even if the Wheat Board were made up of the most perfect people in the world it could not be anything more than human, and it makes mistakes, but it is nice to know there are at least ten or 11 independent elected people representing their electors, watching what is going on and giving advice.
With these advisory meetings as laid down in the amendments I hope this will result in more cogent criticism of the Canadian Wheat Board. This will make it even better than it has been. Just as an example let me refer to a report of one of the independent members who got himself elected. He comes from the province of Alberta and he submitted a report of which I have a copy here. Just listen to his language, and remember that this is a report of an elected representative on the advisory board which we are now legalizing by this legislation. He says in this report:
Did you know: that grade and dockage must be agreed upon by both the elevator agent and the farmer?
That is a routine question. He goes on to state:
A "subject to grade" storage ticket ensures that a government inspector will grade this grain; or you can have a sample government inspected at the government inland terminals. If to your advantage, haul it there, consign it to the elevator company of your choice and receive the $ benefit of official grade and dockage.
Then he says:
(For example, a government inspected sample of your barley may grade 2 CW Barley instead of 1 Feed Barley, to your advantage of 91 cents a bushel.)
I stop there, but that is the type of advice he is giving. This type of thing has been known all along, but not too

April 26, 1976
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)
often have we found people who are advising the farmers and being so frank with them. In fact this advisory member of the board is telling the farmers in his area to make sure they shop around and get the best price from the grain companies.
I was struck by this because I am sure one of the reasons why we have this amendment before us is that there has been a squabble over barley this last year. This is dealt with in clause 4 of the bill. Under this amendment it will be possible for the Wheat Board to set up a malting barley pool. No member has to be told that barley is of several grades. In addition to being of several grades, some of it is selected in a very mysterious manner and called malting. Very few people, if any, are able to tell us or the farmers exactly what is a malting grade of barley. You can haul one load in from your granary and the elevator man will look at it and say it is malting. You can then bring in another load from the same granary and he might look at it and say it is No. 1 feed. The farmers have been unable for years to find out what it is that makes some barley malting and some feed grain, but the price is different. This year it was some 91 cents different.
As the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) was saying before the dinner recess, the key to making this part of the bill work is strict definition of grades. With the knowledge and experience of the elevator agents I think they require a type of description which has never been given before. Some farmers, who for years have been getting malting, will suddenly not get malting but will get No. 1 feed. This year with that 91-cent a bushel spread this represented a very serious loss. My point here is that I think the hon. member for Crowfoot was not gilding the lily when he used the word "stealing".
The grain act makes it very plain that every time a farmer hauls grain to an elevator the law of Canada requires that the farmer be paid for what he delivers. For that reason it is very necessary to have a clear definition of the difference between the various grades we have been using for years. If a farmer does not like the grade given by an elevator agent he can appeal to a government inspector and to the Board of Grain Commissioners. Theirs is the final decision. This system has worked very well over the years. It is very important that the law be carried out, and that each farmer is paid for what he delivers.
No one has told me as yet the full story of what happened last year. Apparently the farmers took in their barley. Many of them got feed grades, and no one knows why. Later on it was discovered there was not enough malting barley on hand, so they took the barley which had been graded No. 1 feed, which gets a lower price, and arbitrarily raised it to malting, and then made the maltsters pay another 91 cents a bushel for that malting barley. Somewhere along the line the farmers were done out of the full 91 cents difference for malting barley.
The hon. member for Crowfoot suggested that the difference went into the accounts of the grain companies. I have heard another story, namely, that it was the Wheat Board that mixed the grain at the terminals up to a malting barley grain which the maltsters accepted. The board took this excess money for this barley that was raised up in grade and distributed the extra money equally in respect of all No. 1 feed deliveries. Some got 18 cents extra and

some got 91 cents extra, and that is what the issue is all about.
I understand from reading the press that a number of farmers have grouped together in Alberta and are suing the Canadian Wheat Board and the grain companies for many millions of dollars because they claim they got No. 1 feed grade for their barley and found out that this was later graded malting barley, yet they only got a final 18 cents a bushel extra payment. In effect they are accusing the Canadian Wheat Board and the grain companies of stealing their grain and are asking for recompense in a class action. I suspect that is the reason for this sudden amendment. This is being made retroactive so that it can be legitimately pooled this year and so that there will be some way to know that the farmer receives the amount of money he should receive rather than having it given to the grain companies or having it spread over all the feed grades.
I say that even though the Canadian Wheat Board has a long record of successful activity that satisfies the great bulk of the farmers, every so often something goes wrong. When it comes to not paying the farmer for the grade of grain as delivered to the elevator and when he is not given the exact price for the exact grade, it is in effect stealing from that farmer and is in breach of the Grain Act.
This brings up the third point I want to make. Twice this afternoon the necessity of protein grading has been mentioned. I think the minister has been very delinquent in not taking the opportunity to get amendments into the act and in not having used this opportunity to make it mandatory that the grain companies provide protein grading at the elevators. Going back 20 years, the argument was that it was impossible for the Board of Grain Commissioners and for the Canadian Wheat Board to grade at the elevators. It was argued that the elevator men were not smart enough to carry out the protein grading technique. That was always a fallacy. So long as the farmers were paid on the basis of the number of pounds brought to the elevator and on the basis of the colour, there was no breach of the law. Now that we are not selling grain on the basis of pounds and colour but on the basis of protein content it is a different story.
Today we are selling at the coasts to overseas buyers wheat graded on an average of 13.5 or 12.5 per cent protein. That is what we are paid for. Our customers demand a guaranteed percentage of protein in the wheat they buy. They are buying protein and not wheat. Therefore under the Grain Act if you sell grain on the basis of protein content you must pay the individual farmer in respect of what he delivered to the elevator on the basis of what it is sold for, and if it is sold on the basis of protein content he should be paid at that rate. If this is not the case then there will be a breach of the Grain Act because this will represent stealing from the individual farmer. Therefore the minister, who knows all this, should have attempted to put into this legislation a clear mandatory direction that grain be graded on a protein content basis so that each farmer would know the amount of protein he delivered. If the grain were mixed after that, that would be fair enough. But the farmer should be paid on the basis of percentage of protein he delivered.
April 26, 1976

I say very bluntly to the minister that I suspect that so long as we continue buying from the farmer on the basis of the existing grading at the elevator, and turn around and sell his grain on a different basis of protein grade, the Canadian Wheat Board and the grain companies are in breach of the Grain Act and are subject to class actions for damages by the farmers when they get mad enough and find out about it.
The minister should have been on top of this. He should have forced the grain companies to modernize their systems and put in this type of grading. I think that is what we should have been discussing here tonight because I believe it is even more important than just the barley malting pool. The principle in both cases is identical.
The pool system is being amended to provide a malting pool so that the farmers will be paid for what they deliver. Why should the farmers not be paid for what they deliver on the basis of the protein content of the wheat, which is nine or ten times more important relatively than the barley problem?
I suggest that the royal commission which is now holding hearings in the west on transportation and grain handling should make a very strong recommendation that the Canadian Wheat Board be asked to have the Canadian Wheat Board Act amended to make it mandatory that the Board and its agents, the grain companies, pay the farmers for what they deliver to the elevator on the basis of the protein grade of the delivered wheat.
I am very annoyed that after all these years, when we have an opportunity to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, we do not get at this basic weakness which has existed ever since Canada began to sell on the basis of protein grade from the elevators. I realize this means that the elevator companies will have to be modernized so that they can not only buy the grain and dry the grain but also grade it on a protein basis.
Once again may I say I think this royal commission should very strongly recommend to the government that the elevator companies be asked, as the royal commission has asked the railway companies, to bring in a rational plan for elevators all through the prairies instead of having this 30-year old long drawn out struggle to avoid giving up older elevators in place of the modern ones we should have had 30 years ago. Now that the elevator companies are exposed I think they should be asked by the royal commission, just as the railways were asked, to bring in a rational plan to modernize elevators so that we are not overwhelmed by irrational building by the various companies. I hope the royal commission will see that as a good recommendation to make. Naturally I would have liked the government to have heeded the pressure of public demand and common sense and to have done it in this legislation.
The next point I wish to make is one that does not require an amendment. There is an interesting clause in section 25(2) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I will read this section because it deals with farm storage:
The Board shall,-
I think this is understood by the minister.
-if directed by regulation, pay to each producer at the time of delivery of wheat to the Board, in addition to any other payment authorized by
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)
this section, a sum per bushel on account of storage of the said wheat on the producer's farm,...
If we are to have a rational grain storage system both at the sea coast terminals and at the country terminals, into that storage system must be built, if we are to have a rational plan, some provision for farm storage. I bring this up particularly in respect of the branch lines.
There has been an ongoing difference of opinion between the farmers and the railroads on these branch lines where the steel is not too good and where the roadbed has not been maintained during the last 20 or 30 years. These branch lines do not operate in the winter months. In some cases where the lines have been built up it is relatively easy for the railway to keep them open and service them in the winter, but there are many hundreds of miles of branch lines where it will be many years, and require the expenditure of many millions of dollars, before they are raised high enough and will be of heavy enough steel to warrant their being kept open during the winter season when the snow has drifted across the tracks.
If the railways could save money by not having to operate trains on those branch lines which only require one train a week, for example, if those trains were stopped for the winter-as most of them are now anyway-so the railways would not have to expend money to snowplough the tracks,-if the railways were given instructions from the Canadian Transport Commission to let these lines lie idle during the winter months, then the farmers along those lines would be quite satisfied if they had the opportunity to get paid for the grain stored on their farms during the periods of non-delivery. They would be glad to store this grain at half the rate that the grain companies demand.
It is an injustice to the farmer who cannot get his grain into the elevators in the fall, and who cannot transport it in the winter because of lack of movement of trains, that he cannot take advantage of the provision in the act which allows the Canadian Wheat Board to pay for the storage of his grain on his own farm until the spring. If he kept his grain on his farm, and assuming it did not interfere with the Wheat Board deliveries to market, he could be compensated at 5 cents a month or 3 cents for six months, and he would be quite satisfied that justice had been done.
I would have liked to have heard some mention made by the minister that he was aware of the fact that this should have been part of the over-all rationalization of the handling of grain on the western farms which would not force the railways to go to extra expense if they did not have to, and at the same time which would allow grain to be held back from lines which would not have to be kept open in the winter. It would be fair both to the grain companies and the farmers along the lines if they got paid for their storage as were farmers along other lines who got their grain into the elevators or could get it to market. I put this suggestion forward knowing that it does not require an amendment to the act because the act allows it now. This requires a decision of the minister and of the Canadian Wheat Board, and I would like to see them think about it and do something about it rather than being told by the

April 26, 1976
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2) royal commission, when it reports in a year or so, that this should have been done.
In summary, what I have tried to do tonight is to put in perspective the work of the Canadian Wheat Board in serving the western farmer as equitably and fairly as it can, to point out that the minister should be congratulated for having made the advisory committee an elected body which we hope can give good advice to the Wheat Board, and to give the minister a little bit of a poke to amend the act insofar as the barley malting pool is concerned. This pool is necessary to get around the difficulty which arose last year, not only because it arose once but because it was so serious last year that we had to amend the act. I should like to suggest very strongly that the minister made a great error in not making protein grading mandatory. I think this should be part of a comprehensive, rational system. I think this amendment would meet with the approval of most members from western Canada, but I could not resist the opportunity to put forward a few suggestions that would have made it much better.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this bill. First of all I should like to speak on the portion dealing with the advisory committee. I think I can accept what the minister has done, although I will say that I had hoped the advisory committee would keep the Wheat Board closer to the producers and closer to the principle on the basis of which the Board was established. We have to remember that in the last six or seven years the political process had a great deal of influence on what has gone on in Wheat Board circles.
As I understand it, the Wheat Board was given the specified duty of getting for the farmers the best price that their product could bring, whether it was selling abroad or in Canada. It is quite easy to sell abroad at a good price, but it is not always so easy to sell the product well in Canada particularly when it comes to feed grains and products consumed in other parts of Canada. For instance, if feed barley is sold by the western farmer, should he receive all the money he can get on the world market or should he in the national interest accept a lesser price in order to give the feeder in eastern Canada an advantage or to eliminate excess price?
It is important that the Wheat Board be as close to the farmers as possible, and that the advisory committee to be elected by the farmers act as a watch dog on what the Wheat Board is doing. It should be noted that the Wheat Board will function best if the political input from Ottawa is kept down to the minimum.
I should like to comment on the problem of barley which this bill seeks to rectify. It has come about because the producers of No. 1 feed barley this year are now seeing red. A good many of them have lost more than $2,000 a car lot because their earnings were lumped into the same pool as funds from lower priced feed barley.
Indications that a separate pool for selected and accepted barley will be instituted this year are not going down too well with producers who lost heavily in the past year. As some producers have said:
It has never been this bad. It's the same as if someone puts their hand in your pocket and takes $2,000.

At this point we're unwilling to accept this kind of legislation. We feel there is mismanagement to the point where the government should rectify their errors.
It has all come about because of the shortage of malting barley and the fact that some feed barley was put in but the grower of better grade barley did not receive his proper return.
I have received a letter from a constituent, who made what I thought was a very good comment, in which he stated that he hoped that any proposed legislation and change would be retroactive to the 1974-75 crop year at least because this was the crop year when any significant difference in the pricing of the two types of barley took place. He writes:
Feed barley producers who have had their final payments increased by selected barley producers in 1974-75 should have no objection to have their final payments reduced by a like amount in 1975-76 to correct a situation that should never have been allowed to exist in the first place.
He suggests that the only known way to correct a wrong is by making it right. He goes on to say that it is not just luck that a barley sample is selected for malting. Malting barley requires any number of conditions which do not necessarily apply to feed barley. First, a variety must be grown which is acceptable to maltsters, and most barley varieties have disadvantages. They are usually lower yielding than feed varieties. They generally require earlier seeding to mature. They are more intensive and need more expensive weed control. They need proper timing of swathing to avoid damage by frost or shrinkage. Harvesting is a problem, and more care must be taken. Cleaning and marketing are more variable.
I think the minister in charge of the Wheat Board should consider what he could do for barley producers who have found themselves caught out this year. It is certainly true that many farmers do try to raise malting barley. They give it extra attention, but very often they do not succeed because of conditions beyond their control. When they do have the good luck and the good fortune to have a carload of malting barley, they should receive benefit from their work.
There is one other clause in the bill which interests me. It is clause 5 at page 8 of the bill. The explanation given of this clause is to correct an anomaly in the act since the act does not provide for an initial payment in respect of rye, flaxseed, and rapeseed. I should like to hear an explanation of the purpose of this clause from the minister because it is my understanding with regard to rye, flaxseed, and rape-seed on the open market that there would be no necessity to have an initial payment unless it was decided to put these under the Wheat Board. However, I think it is important that before any of these grains be put under the Wheat Board the views of the majority of producers be ascertained in the usual manner.
Because there is not usually very much opportunity to discuss the problems of the wheat grower, I should like to speak about a problem which is common to the northern part of the prairies, particularly my area, which is a parkland area. All wheat now grown in the parkland area, which I understand this year is approximately 100 million bushels, is grown in the area stretching from the Peace River country through northern Alberta, northern Sas-
April 26, 1976

katchewan and on into Manitoba. All of it is pretty well graded No. 3 Red this year. The next grade below No. 3 Red is No. 3 Utility wheat, or what is commonly known as feed wheat.
The price differential between No. 3 Red and No. 3 Utility is anywhere from 40 cents a bushel to 60 cents a bushel. This seems to have come about because of the change in the grading system, and it is causing a great deal of consternation and reassessment about what farmers should grow in my area. We in the parkland area have always accepted that we grow lower protein wheat, but generally speaking we grow more bushels, and by and large there has always been a market around the world for the parkland wheat even if it has not commanded the same high price as southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta wheat.
The recent changes in the grading system seem to have made No. 3 Red wheat a relatively unwanted variety,in the grain trade. The changeover from the grading system meant, presumably, that No. 1 and No. 2 were to go into the new No. 1 Red; No. 3 and No. 4 were to go into No. 2 Red; No. 5 and a bit of No. 6 were to go into No. 3; and the balance of No. 6 and feed wheat were to go into the new grade 3 utility. However, while the drawings and the propaganda put out by the Board of Grain Commissioners have these all neatly circled, in practice I have found that the government grading system as well as that of elevator agents-and they are not to blame-is that they are putting pretty well all wheat in the parkland area in No. 3 Red. In other words, they are really grading protein by areas.
I had occasion to take a sample of wheat to two individual elevator buyers. I asked them what this would grade under the old system, and they said it was at least a poor No. 3 or a good No. 4. This should have put it into the grade 2 Red, but in effect it did not because the Board of Grain Commissioners people graded all this No. 3 Red, which is considerably below what it would have graded under the old grading system.
What is the effect of this? The effect has been that No. 3 Red wheat has had a hard job this year finding a market around the world. Many farmers in my constituency have delivered no wheat this year because there was no room. One country point only had ten cars in the last four months, none of which was No. 3 Red wheat. Even No. 3 Utility wheat is moving faster than No. 3 Red. Furthermore, elevator agents and farmers point out that the difference between No. 3 Red and No. 3 Utility was 60 cents a bushel last year, 40 cents a bushel this year, and that the difference between grading No. 3 Red and No. 3 Utility in many cases is not easy.
These changes are having a very adverse effect on the grading of wheat on many millions of acres. I should like to know why this is. Is there some collusion, so to speak, between the Wheat Board, the Board of Grain Commissioners and grain handling companies? It will obviously be easy for the Wheat Board to sell grades 1 and 2 around the world. The percentage of high grade wheat moving in international circles has remained fairly high, at 26 per cent or 27 per cent. It has been fairly consistent over the last number of years.
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)
But what about No. 3 Red? That is a harder thing to sell, whereas previously it was easily sold, particularly this past year. Is the Wheat Board always making an effort to sell No. 3 Red wheat? A good deal of the wheat is being pushed down into No. 3 Utility and into feed grain, and I suspect that the Wheat Board does not find this all that bad because it is relieved of attempting to dispose of a sizeable portion of the No. 3 Red crop around the world. I think this is unfortunate.
I think we are doing ourselves out of a market, and as the amount of grain involved is one hundred million bushels at $4 or $5 a bushel, that represents half a billion dollars. If this is lost, our farmers and our economy are certainly much worse off. If grain is not going to be graded any higher than No. 3 Red and if it will not be easily sold, there may be a shift in farming practices. I suggest that in the new grading system there should be another grade between No. 3 Red and feed wheat.
Of course, having the new system has been advantageous to grain handling companies because it has reduced their binning requirements necessary to carry out more grades. Grading is not uniform. I have known elevator agents say, "If you were in southern Saskatchewan I could grade this grain as No. 1; but here we must grade it as No. 3." That shows that the grading system is hazy in operation and not serving the farmers. I hope the minister and the grain commissioners will look at the matter and correct it. Possibly the solution lies in introducing another grade which could be equivalent to Nos. 5 and 6 under the old grading system. This, I think, would best serve the farming community, particularly the farming community of western Canada.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring two or three matters to the attention of hon. members, particularly those interested in the production and movement of grain. I suggest that all hon. members ought to be vitally interested in what is happening to prairie grain on world markets, as grain sales vitally affect our country's well-being. We sell about $3 billion worth of grain on world markets. These grain sales improve our balance of trade, something we should not forget.
I was concerned, on returning to this House, to discover that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, who is also the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang)-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And acting government House leader today.


Thomas Gordon Towers: -and acting House leader could not answer our questions during the question period. He said he did not know the answers. Obviously the reason is that he has not been in Ottawa, keeping in touch with events; he has been in western Canada, traipsing around in the Jetstar and trying to sell his stabilization bill to producers. The minister reminds me of Nero who fiddled while Rome burned. He was fiddling around in western Canada, trying to sell a program not too acceptable to western grain producers. By accepting our advice he could have designed a workable program. He would not have needed to spend several weeks out west trying to sell his program to producers. When he appeared in Red Deer, two known Liber-

Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2) als clapped their hands-not at what he said, but perhaps because he is such a good looking fellow.
We question certain aspects of this bill and will consider them further, in detail when the bill is in committee. In some ways the faults of this bill are similar to the faults of the grain stabilization bill. As was pointed out at the meeting in Red Deer, the grain stabilization bill is dictatorial, as is this bill. After the stabilization program has been in place three years, the producer cannot opt out. He is locked in. Orders in council can raise or lower tariffs, but it is dangerous to introduce a program from which the producer cannot opt out. The same is true of the bill we are considering.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That's nonsense. You can't opt out of the Canada Pension Plan.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Yes, but the government is assuming too much control over the administrative aspects of the bill. I know that on second reading we are not supposed to speak in detail on the clauses of the bill. Nevertheless, allow me to read part of proposed section 10.5(3) wherein it says:
The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the conduct of an election of members of the Advisory Committee and in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations . ..
The following subparagraphs specify that there shall be regulations prescribing the qualifications of members of the advisory committee, regulations governing the making and withdrawing of nominations, and so on. The provision for elections puts me in mind of what happens in Russia. If the government wants to introduce such regulations, why must we elect an advisory committee? Logically, if the advisory committee is elected, it should control the program and be responsible to its electors. Why should control of the program be vested in Ottawa, in the cabinet? Why should the minister in charge of the Wheat Board try to exercise control of the committee? I cannot accept that provision as logical or reasonable.
If an advisory committee is to be elected, surely it will be composed of members who will want to act in the best interests of prairie grain producers. Why should the governor in council be given ultimate responsibility? The point is one of fundamental importance.
The bill contains other provisions for the making of rules and regulations for the pooling and sale of grain. It will be to the advantage of grain producers if malting barley sales are pooled. Certainly members representing grain producing ridings have received letters from producers complaining about losses in the last two years. On average producers lost about $2,000 per carload; no small amount. If the minister in charge of the Wheat Board had been sufficiently far-sighted, he would have foreseen what could happen. Why should producers on average have lost that $2,000? Grain producers have every right to know.
Sometimes the difference between various grades of barley used for malting is small. There could be little difference between No. 1 feed and 3C grain or barley used for malting. I had a letter from a man who took two carloads of malting barley from the same bin. One was graded 3CW and the other No. 1 feed. To all intents and purposes it was the same grade of grain. He wondered why the grain had been graded differently. He lost about $2,000

on the deal. Clearly, eliminating such discrepancies would be to the benefit of producers.
As the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) suggested earlier, the $2,000 lost might find its way to the pockets of some grain companies. There is a loophole here which ought to be closed. The advisory committee could close it. I do not think it is up to the governor in council to make an order in this regard.
The bill also deals with the pooling and handling of grain. I do not like the provision in the bill for a further tinkering by the governor in council with regard to the cutoff date for the pooling aspect. I do not think it is right, necessary or logical.
Hon. members will recall that during the 1972 election campaign the minister in charge of the Wheat Board did a little tinkering. He had a final payment made prior to the end of the year. This upset a lot of producers because they were used to getting the final payment after the year end and had governed their sales accordingly. This payment upset their whole financial operation. They had to pay income tax on an income they had not anticipated.
This upsetting aspect was not just limited to producers, but to members of the other place. Immediately after that, they brought in a bill stipulating that payments only be made after the beginning of a new calendar year. They were aware of this tinkering by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.
The minister is now going to do more tinkering. In this bill there is provision to allow adjustment of the pooling cutoff. It is neither reasonable nor necessary; in fact, the advisory committee could do that. They know when the cutoff should be. If an election is to be held in a year or two, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board could manipulate the final payment to such a degree that it would be of benefit to the government. I do not like this kind of tinkering. It is not fair. I am sure that members opposite do not appreciate that provision the minister is including in this bill.
There is something else that concerns me. The Wheat Board is making provision for an amount in the vicinity of $10 million to provide a storage facility on the west coast. This is made up of producer dollars. We see what is happening in other aspects of industry. Governments provide facilities for the provision or development of manufactured products. We see what is happening in CIDA. Canadian dollars are made available for the promotional activity of manufacturers in this country. I do not see why the federal government cannot undertake this obligation rather than having the Wheat Board undertake it.
There are many things that could be of great benefit to the prairie grain producer. These provisions could be made by the advisory committee. I suggest they will be well versed on the requirements of the industry. More cognizance should be given to them rather than having the control left in the hands of the governor in council.
It is time we realized that all knowledge of the grain industry and the future well-being does not necessarily rest with the government of the day, whether it be with the present government or some future government. More
April 26, 1976

power should be given to the advisory committee because they know the score. They know what is taking place.
I hope that in committee government members and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board will give consideration to the comments that I have made. I do not think the government should take much more control of the industry. A shortcoming of all governments is that they try to build empires. There is no room for any empire building in the production of grain in western Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

Hon. C. M. Drury (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill S-8, respecting the use of national safety marks in relation to motor vehicle tires and to provide for safety standards for certain motor vehicle tires imported into or exported from Canada or sent or conveyed from one province to another, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on third reading of Bill S-8.1 might say at the outset that we are generally pleased to see this bill brought forward for third reading-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: Just wait for the lines. I might say something nasty before I am finished. We are pleased because several on this side of the House, including the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), had considerable input into the second reading debate and the committee hearings. I also commend the minister's parliamentary secretary-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Don't do that.


William James Kempling: Well, you have to give a bit of credit once in a while.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William James Kempling: All right, you win.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It was all written out for him.
Tire Safety Act


William James Kempling: We made several amendments to the bill. As a result of some private meetings a consensus was reached on the amendments and the final form of the bill. This is one of the better bills that have been handled since I have been here. We were able to make reasonable progress both at second reading and committee stage.
As hon. members know, the bill deals with tire safety standards and a national tire safety mark. In its original form it provided for the establishment of a record keeping system at the retail level and for a system of inspection to ensure that the records were maintained. I am happy to say that the government recognized the weakness of such a procedure and withdrew that provision in committee. As a matter of fact it was agreed to proceed with the debate on second reading only on the understanding that this provision would be removed.
During the committee stage further changes were made. The term "distributor" was defined along lines more in keeping with those understood by the trade. The bill was further amended to require record-keeping by manufacturers, importers, and others connected with interprovincial trade. Notification of a defective tire was required by certified mail rather than by registered mail as originally written in the bill-we felt this would be an easier, faster, and less costly procedure.
Some amendments were made to Part II of the bill having to do with inspectors and powers of inspectors. As a result we feel the measure now has a reasonable chance of being accepted and implemented broadly across the country by all levels of the trade.
There were other clauses we would have liked to have seen changed. We are still not happy about the definition of safety standards in clause 20. However, we reluctantly accept the testimony of the department's officials that there was no intention to lay down design criteria-nor are they, in fact, capable of designing tires.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We know that. They are bureaucrats.


William James Kempling: We know they are not capable of designing anything except a lot of red tape. Hon. members may have noticed recently that a new tire process has been developed in Britain. The tire tread is compressed on to the casing in such a way as to resist cuts in the tread. This promises improved safety and much longer tire life. Such developments are, of course, in the nature of the tire business. It is highly competitive, a high profile business which requires a well organized distribution chain backed by competent service. In the tire business you will find thousands of small businessmen. Both they and the consumers will benefit from this legislation.
When this bill passes and is proclaimed, tires which are being imported into Canada in increasing numbers will come under its control. This is an aspect which concerns us. I do not know whether the legislation we are considering will straighten it out or not, but our tire industry is floundering rather badly right now. The last time I looked at the statistics I found we were producing only about 50 per cent of the radial tires consumed in Canada. If there is any industry in Canada with a potential which is not presently being fulfilled, it is the tire industry. Perhaps

April 26, 1976
Tire Safety Act
when this legislation passes and imported tires are required to go through the inspection process, we may see our own tire dealers become a little more expansionary in their thinking and make added capacity available to serve the domestic market.
Under the bill as presently written, a customer purchasing a tire will have to fill out a card on which the serial number is recorded. This information will be kept by the manufacturer, or importer, or by the interprovincial distributor, and in the event of a tire being found defective they will be required to notify the consumer by certified mail. We think this is how it should be done. The tire industry in general agrees with this procedure. I believe the retail and wholesale dealers across the country are in favour of it and, as I said earlier, the legislation has a reasonable chance of being accepted broadly across the country to the benefit of everyone who purchases tires.
The bill before us started off in the other place and, after lengthy hearings during which some really good evidence was presented, it found its way to this House. Really, it was the evidence presented at the Senate hearings which gave us the idea where to go to get certain changes made. What seemed strange to me was that the government appeared reluctant to accept the testimony presented at the Senate hearings by knowledgeable people.
When it became apparent that the original intent of the government with regard to safety standards was being changed in such a way as to mean the establishment of another great bureaucracy of inspectors to check the records of retail stations, many people who looked at the legislation objectively became angry. Subsequently, to its credit, there was a change of mind; there had been a change of ministers and parliamentary secretaries and we were able to negotiate, one might say.
We wanted to see the legislation passed but we believed the government should remove the record-keeping clause applying to retail tire dealers. As I say, the minister, the parliamentary secretary and the officials saw the wisdom of this approach, and to their credit they made the change which we were proposing. We thought it was a good move. As a matter of fact it was this concession which got the bill going again and prompted us to take it through second reading into committee and pass it there in a relatively short period of time. I hope we can dispose of it this evening so that it can proceed, presumably, to the Senate-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And you and the minister with it!


William James Kempling: I hear the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) say something down there. If he gets involved in this discussion we will be talking about it this time next year. In spite of what he may say-and I know he is capable of saying anything-I still believe that those on all sides who were involved with the bill before us deserve praise because it is one of the few bills with regard to which I have seen close co-operation. If we could only do the same with respect to more pieces of legislation we in this House would be very much more productive.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this third reading debate on Bill S-8, which was originally introduced in the other place as

Bill S-3, I think something over two years ago. As the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) has pointed out, we on this side of the House generally support the principle of the bill, though quite frankly the first version presented to the House of Commons, having passed the other place, was a very bad piece of legislation. As the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth said, Bill S-8 represents a vast improvement over that first version with which we were presented.
Had Bill S-3, which is now Bill S-8, been passed in its original form I venture to say that probably one half or three quarters of our independent tire dealers in Canada would have been out of business. Testimony presented to us clearly brought to light the bureaucratic nightmare that this piece of legislation would have caused, and which would have made the whole operation quite unworkable.
In saying this I suppose I am criticizing those in the other place and I am not sure it is parliamentary to do so, but I will take a chance on that anyway.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Come on, feel free.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I think the examination of this legislation in the other place left much to be desired, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. members of the other place touched the periphery of the contents of this bill, but although some very major objections were raised and talked about, very little action was taken. While the intent of the bill and the principle of the bill are both laudable, I do not think the provisions of the bill would have been properly realized, nor would the objective of safety have been properly achieved had it not been for the close scru-tinization by the members of the House of Commons and the further scrutinization that took place in the transport committee.
I think as originally presented the bill was clearly a classic example of bureaucratic overkill as a result of which the objective of safety would not have been fulfilled. I base this statement in part on testimony presented to the committee, as well as on testimony given in the United States where a similar registration process is currently in existence and where the compliance record is something in the order of 20 to 30 per cent.
Bringing in a piece of legislation that is unworkable, unmanageable, and which will not be complied with will never achieve the purpose for which it is intended. This was the major fault we saw in this piece of legislation. As I said before, these points were clearly identifiable in the testimony examined in the committee and debates in the other place, but our hon. friends in the other place failed to pursue the issues and thereby failed in their attempts to make it a workable piece of legislation. I must say I regret that.
As the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth pointed out, while the bill is far from perfect there have been some major improvements made to it which can be either added to later or improved upon once the legislation comes into force. Certainly the bureaucratic mess that the bill in its original form would have created would not be in the best interests of motor vehicle safety.
As presently framed the bill provides for a form of voluntary registration and for a recall mechanism between
April 26, 1976

manufacturer and end user, which in this case is the final consumer. We think it is in the best interests of consumers to take advantage of the safety provisions in this bill, the recall system, and the registration provisions as prescribed in the regulations. In the event that a consumer purchases a tire from a tire dealer or manufacturer and that particular type of tire becomes defective, the consumer will be notified if a recall is necessary.
As the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth has said, there are some areas in the bill that still give us on this side of the House cause for concern. For example, the notification of a defect as provided for in clause 8 still causes us some concern. We are indeed delighted that the bill has eliminated the necessity for the small tire dealer and retailer to notify the consumer. Now the onus is placed directly upon the manufacturer.
Another criticism that we have relates to clause 8(1) under which, as we read the bill, a manufacturer is guilty of an offence if he fails to give notice of a defect in a tire that is not necessarily sold but which is moved through the merchandizing system of the company. The manufacturer must give notice by certified mail of such defect, otherwise he is guilty of an offence. That is all very well and good when it applies to the end user, the consumer, and we certainly find no fault with that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You want it both ways, do you?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: My hon. friend from Regina-Lake Centre would not appreciate this because he really does not understand business. He believes the best way to achieve an objective is to nationalize or socialize; he does not really understand or appreciate the ramifications of competition in the workaday world of business among small entrepreneurs, at the distributor level, and so on and so forth. As far as he is concerned, the more regulations the better. He and his colleagues are great advocates of that, and to some extent the government of the day has fallen for that sort of poppycock, which is why we are in the trouble we are in today.


An hon. Member:: Has he worked for the CPR too?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He has probably worked for the CPR and the CN. As far as he is concerned he would probably much rather have worked for the CN because it was a nationalized corporation. If he had his way he would nationalize the whole railway network.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member return to Bill S-8.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Don't do that; that would ruin
everything.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but these kind of interjections lead one into a discussion of the whole transportation industry, and a lot of our goods are transported on rubber. That is one of our problems. As far as the hon. member is concerned, we should be using steel wheels.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: How about square wheels?
Tire Safety Act


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As I was attempting to point out, it is all well and good to engage in a registered mail or certified letter process when notifying the end user, but in the case of notification of the merchandising network, such as the distributors, dealers and sub-dealers, there are perhaps better and more effective methods.
The wording of the bill as it now stands makes it an offence for a manufacturer not to notify by certified mail. In the testimony of the witnesses who appeared before the committee in support of this piece of legislation it was brought out that there may very well be other methods that could prove more effective in the notification process than registered mail. The manufacturer, however, is faced with the possibility of being guilty of an offence if he fails to notify his dealer or distributor by certified mail. All I am saying is that there are other ways and means, such as the telex system. There could be a telephone call within the system. I think there is a differentiation to be made here.
Within the merchandising system we have a different situation than in the case of the consumer or end user. I have no argument or qualms about the provisions which require that the end user be notified by registered mail or certified letter, but there are procedures and methods that could be utilized in notification within the merchandising process. We were given the assurance by the parliamentary secretary and officials of the Department of Transport that such regulations which clarify the notification process will be presented so that the process will not only be effective but also not overly burdensome.
It stands to reason that it would be sheer lunacy to suggest that when a manufacturer ships out 75,000 tires to
3,000	dealers he must send out a certified letter or a letter by registered mail notifying them of a pending difficulty. Surely there are other more appropriate ways and means. It may well be suggested that this is a technicality, but I think it is a matter of some concern to manufacturers.
Our second area of concern is that part which deals with the definition of safety standards. While we appreciate that the definition does conform to the definition in the Motor Vehicle Act, after which this particular piece of legislation is patterned, we were not convinced by the testimony and arguments presented by the parliamentary secretary and the officials that the final test is in performance. We believe the safety standard definitions could in fact regulate the design and construction to such an extent that this may well affect future advancement in the manufacture and production of tires. The Michelin people, for example, in a letter which was submitted to the committee on November 19, stated:
We feel that the definition of "Safety Standards" ... should not be worded in a manner which could considerably restrict future design possibilities and innovations. "Safety Standards" should mean actual performance standards and all marking requirements specifically. We feel that design and construction of a tire, as we would define those words, are such that they should be left specifically to the manufacturer.
In addition, it is pointed out in a letter to myself from the Michelin people as follows:
We would like to point out in more general terms, to yourself, that in establishing new performance standards, which are in essence minimum standards, that they can have quite the reverse effect to that

April 26, 1976
Tire Safety Act
desired, instead of bringing up the standards of the lesser grades of a product it can encourage design down to those minimum standards.


An hon. Member:: What is the date of the letter?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That date of that letter is March 19, 1976, and I thank the hon. member for drawing that to my attention because I think it is a very pertinent and logical argument.
We do not want to bring forward a bill that would provide for minimum safety standards. What we want to do is encourage optimum standards in respect of automobile tires, whether that be safety and/or performance.
The suggestion here by the Michelin people is that the current definition in the bill establishes a minimum standard which could in fact encourage the tire manufacturers to design downward rather than upward. This is something that may well be a valid consideration. Quite frankly I think the definition could have been dressed up considerably. I do not believe it is the intention of the ministry to dictate design and construction to automobile tire manufacturers. That being the case, this should not be included in the bill.
Safety standards as now defined at page 2 of the bill mean standards regulating the design, construction or function of a motor vehicle tire for the purpose of protecting persons against personal injury, impairment of health, or death.
Quite frankly we believe the key here is performance rather than design and construction. It really does not matter what sort of formula is used in the fabricating of a tire as long as it is safe, performs properly, and meets these standards. We think we can live with that. However, in the opinion of the minister and his representatives, that was not a valid argument. I simply reiterate that we have some reservations about that aspect of the bill.
The other area about which we have some concern is the power of the inspectors. Here again we may be overly concerned, but I feel I must place on the record some of the concerns that have been advanced by the Michelin tire people. I do not have any association with the Michelin people, but I do know, as I am sure many of my colleagues do, that they have set optimum standards in terms of tires and tire safety. Therefore I value the points they have advanced in respect of this particular piece of legislation. They are somewhat concerned about the wording of the section as it relates to the design and construction, but more so in terms of clause 11 as it now stands.
I refer to a letter directed to the Committee on Transportation and Communications dated March 24, 1976. It states:
With clause 11 as it stands now, there is no limitation of power of the inspectors, therefore an inspector can enter any Canadian tire manufacturing facility, photocopy all documents to his liking, freeze all movement of products for a period of 90 or more days and walk away.
The consequences are easy to imagine: work methods and procedures, trade secrets as well as production capacities available to all government employees, thus the Canadian public. Frozen movement of the products will stop production lines causing massive lay-offs and therefore economic hardship to the affected company and to the employees of that company.
It may seem an exaggeration, but with the clause 11 of the act as it is worded now, this is possible and it is in the hands of one inspector who,

according to clause 11 (1), may reasonably believe there is any motor vehicle tire of a class etc.
Gentlemen, we appeal to you, as members of the standing committee, to reconsider the powers of the inspector, to seek assurance that only when an actual safety related problem is evident, is the inspector entitled to the search and seizure powers conferred by this act.
Perhaps that may be a bit of over-exaggeration but nonetheless I think it draws attention to the very wide powers the inspectors have under the provisions of this bill.
With those reservations, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in seeing this bill move forward because I believe it is a bill which clearly all Canadians would support. We on this side of the House support it. We are grateful to members on the government side for accepting some of our suggestions and for dealing in a very serious and sincere way with the reservations we advanced.
Along with my good friend from Halton-Wentworth I wish to pay a tribute to the parliamentary secretary, who indeed has been very helpful in respect of this bill.
In closing I want to say this piece of legislation has one glaring loophole in that it fails to recognize the retread tire. As I pointed out in my initial remarks, this bill has been before the House for over two years. During that time in the testimony that was advanced we were led to believe there would be a code of standards brought forward by the government relating to the safety standards of retreads. It is very discouraging to note that there has not been any progress in this particular area.
While there has been some concern by the government about moving this bill forward, there has been absolutely no progress, so far as we are aware, concerning the question of the retread tire. I think the Ministry of Transport and the government have been derelict in providing leadership to bring together the retreaders and manufacturers in the kind of association that would provide the kind of standards which should govern the sale of retread tires across the country.
It seems to me that a retreaded tire should pass a performance test just the same as a brand new tire. I am told that in the United States a retreader is responsible for maintaining the same standards as those required for a new tire. I think that is a very simple standard. During this two year interval in which we have focused attention on the question of tire safety I think it would have behooved the government and the Ministry of Transport to have come forward and established a proper code or a proper standard governing the sale of retreaded tires.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I wish you would make up your mind.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: While we welcome this particular bill as it applies to new tires, we must say very simply that we regret there has been little or no initiative taken in the area of retread tires. My friend said that he wished I would make up my mind. I am as interested as he is in the safety of tires. He does not have a monopoly on the question of safety. I happen to know a little more about the tire business than he. He may be a little jealous. I can assure him that I am as concerned about retread tires as I am about new tires, both of which are being sold very readily on today's market.
April 26, 1976

In the two years that this bill has been before the House one would have considered that the government, particularly this minister and his very effervescent and knowledgeable parliamentary secretary, before engaging in an attempt to sell us on this measure would have come forth with some positive recommendation in the area of retread tires. I hope that now we are giving them the satisfaction of the passage of this bill they will not delay too long in coming forward and perhaps orchestrating the kind of a system which should govern the sale of retread tires in this country.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased this evening to see that on this occasion we are back before the House of Commons once again at the report stage of Bill S-8 to consider a number of amendments that have been proposed and approved by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I hope this indicates that the House will give this bill its approval very shortly. In this connection I am very pleased to have heard the remarks of the hon. members who spoke just before me.
I want to express a word of thanks to the members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and also to the witnesses who appeared before that committee in the course of our deliberations. I should like to thank the committee members for their co-operation in the thorough and fair consideration which I believe has resulted in some improvements to the bill. I should like to commend as well the very real contribution to this bill by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).
Dealing very briefly at the outset with the concluding comments of my friend from Vegreville, I want to assure him sincerely that the issue to which he referred, the matter of retread tires, is not one which has escaped the attention or the concern of the government. Indeed we share the concern he expressed this evening. I assure him work is going forward in that particular area, and I hope we may be able soon to contend with the problem which he outlined earlier this evening.
The history of this particular piece of legislation I think is pretty well understood. It was introduced in the Senate in its original form two years ago as Bill S-3. After examination by the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and subsequent approval by the Senate, the bill unfortunately expired on the order paper of the House of Commons. It was re-introduced and passed by the other place in October, 1974, as Bill S-8. First reading was given to Bill S-8 in this House in October, 1974, and second reading was completed on March 4, 1976. Our Standing Committee on Transport and Communications has given careful study to the bill and has approved a number of amendments which I believe have improved this piece of legislation, as I said earlier.
The general objectives of the Motor Vehicle Tire Safety Act have not changed in the course of the last couple of years of work. This bill, when passed, will lead to increased safety of Canadian motorists and will prevent unfair competition for Canadian tire manufacturing plants.
Tire Safety Act
During discussion of this bill, both at second reading and in the standing committee, the need for such a bill has been questioned. In particular there has been some suggestion that the implementation of this legislation will not contribute greatly to road safety. On the other hand, I believe many of the comments made during second reading related to the very real concern that many of us have about the quality and safety of the tires that are offered for sale in this country.
The testimony that many of us had the opportunity to hear in the committee demonstrated that Canadian manufacturers are indeed doing an excellent job in producing first class tires for the Canadian consumer. However, there was also testimony that indicated that on occasion defective tires do get produced and do result in serious road accidents. It is the objective of this bill to see that these occasions are rare and that when they do occur that motorists have the opportunity of being notified in advance of the defects so that they may avoid driving their cars on potentially dangerous tires.
The passage of this bill will also enhance federal-provincial co-operation by assisting the provinces in overcoming problems involving the control of tire safety at the point of retail sale.
The main provisions of this legislation probably bear repeating and emphasizing at this time. The bill will establish the authority for the governor in council to prescribe safety standards for minimum tire safety requirements. These standards will be established for new tires manufactured in Canada and for all tires imported into this country. The bill establishes a national tire safety mark and, by use of the mark, tire manufacturers will be certifying that they comply with the prescribed safety standards.
Manufacturers and distributors will be prohibited from exporting or from sending or carrying from one province to another motor vehicle tires to which the national safety mark has not been applied. Manufacturers and importers will be required to give notice of any safety related tire defects of which they become aware. The bill establishes the method by which this notice must be given.
As has been mentioned earlier in the House this evening, the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications has given careful consideration to the problems this bill might have created for small distributors and dealers. As was mentioned during the second reading, it was never the government's intention to require dealers to maintain a detailed record system of their tire sales, nor was there any intention to establish a large staff of inspectors to ensure that the act was being complied with at the small distributor and dealer level. For this reason two main amendments were proposed, one establishing a record system in which consumers could have their names recorded if they so desired, and a second providing that inspectors already designated under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act be designated as inspectors under this act.
The committee, as a result of consultation, settled on a number of amendments which will limit certain responsibilities under the act to manufacturers, importers, and only those distributors who are in the business of selling in more than one province or country; the responsibility for giving notice of safety related defects, as a result of these

April 26, 1976
Tire Safety Act
amendments, has been clearly left to the manufacturers and importers.
I think that as hon. members go through this legislation and compare the bill which is before the House this evening with the one which was referred to the committee some weeks ago they will find that a number of amendments have been made to it. For the information of those hon. members who would like to follow the course of this legislation I would point out that the most significant of these amendments are to clauses 2, 4, 5, and 7, and probably the most important is to clause 8.
The proposed change to clause 8 will result in the distributors having no responsibility for notifying subsequent tire purchasers of safety related defects. Instead this responsibility will lie entirely with the manufacturers or importers. Therefore the consumer will still be assured that he will be notified of a defect if he has his name recorded with the manufacturer or importer. However, distributors and dealers will not be responsible for maintaining a record of tire purchasers.
Clause 8(2)(a) is also to be amended so that certified mail may be used rather than registered mail in notifying purchasers of safety related defects.
Clause 10 is also a clause to which hon. members may wish to refer to see some of the work of the standing committee. Clause 11 was another such clause. In view of the lateness of the hour I will confine my concluding remarks to clause 11, and be brief with respect to it.
The proposed amendment to clause 11 will ensure that inspectors do not have a completely free run of a manufacturer's premises. Inspectors will be able to inspect tires at the point of manufacture. However, they will only be able to inspect completed tires that are to be offered for sale. Therefore they will not be involved with experimental or developmental tires. This possibility concerned the industry and, as the House has heard, it concerns hon. members opposite as well, and I believe these amendments will satisfy the industry that the inspectors will only be concerned with tires that will find their way into the market place.
I am satisfied that these amendments do not compromise the original objectives of the bill. In fact I believe they will strengthen the bill by making it more practical, and by more clearly defining the responsibilities of manufacturers, importers, and distributors. In view of all this I believe that at this time Bill S-8 is worthy of the support of all parties in this House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in the one minute left I only want to say that while we agree that this legislation should be passed we think it is window dressing. In spite of all the nit picking by the official opposition and the protestations by the government it will not guarantee proper safety and performance.
I would like to remind the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), who said he knows so much about the tire business, that I too dealt with it for about eight years and I know that every reputable small businessman and retailer keeps accurate records of the serial numbers, kinds, makes, and sizes of tires, and that whatever fears he might have had have nothing to do with safety and performance and the protection of the public.

The legislation can well be passed tonight but it will make little difference in experience in the next few years because both the government and the official opposition have chickened out and have not done something really important about tire safety.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could the acting House leader tell us what is the business for tomorrow?


Otto Emil Lang: At present it would be our inclination to call Bill C-89 and possibly Bill C-68, although the alternative would be to go to Bill C-61 and attempt to finish it tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, without upsetting any delicate arrangements that may be about to be culminated with respect to the replacement of the Argus or interfering with it because all of us, particularly on this side, are very concerned that Maritime Command get a replacement, I wish to say that there is no question that we continue to agree that that replacement should be the Orion. However, we continue to have some very grave concern about mismanagement and very bad handling with respect to the details of the contract, and my purpose tonight is to try to touch on three questions which I raised shortly prior to the Easter recess with respect to perhaps a narrow aspect of this situation. They have to do with the authority or the absence of authority for the spending of any moneys by the Department of National Defence or on behalf of National Defence by the Department of Supply and Services, or the authorizing by Supply and Services of the expenditures of any funds prior to the establishment of a contract.
I think it would serve the understanding of Canadians, particularly hon. members on this side of the House, quite substantially if we were to understand a little more about the background for proceeding in the absence of a contract,
April 26, 1976

and particularly for proceeding when there was reason to believe that the contract would give rise to some considerable problems.
As I indicated, I do not particularly want to make comments or observations this evening which would jeopardize the situation as we now have it. I think we would be reassured if the parliamentary secretary could indicate to us tonight one or two things; first, if he could touch on the nature of the authority and from whence it came with respect to expenditures which were made in the absence of a contract; second, if he could give us some indication with respect to timing, because I understand that, perhaps even more than the Department of National Defence, the Department of Supply and Services continues to be very closely and deeply involved in this contract; third, we would appreciate hearing tonight a reiteration of the assurance that in connection with any announcement either the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) or the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) might again undertake immediately to table the contract and that the minister will refer that contract to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence so that the members of that committee and Canadians in general will have some understanding of the contract and some understanding of just what it is we are getting into.
Finally, there is a fourth area. I recognize that this falls a little closer into the area of1 policy which would be more clearly national defence, but in this interim period has any consideration been given by the ministry, by the Treasury benches, or by the Department of National Defence to proceeding with the development and work up of a contract which would effectively reduce, change or alter the form of the replacement equipment? What I am getting at is whether there has been any consideration given by the Treasury Board to charging other user departments a portion of the capital cost of the Orion so that the cost to the Department of National Defence will not be in the order of $60 million to $70 million, or possibly even $75 million or $80 million, but rather more in the order of $30 million. It seems unreasonable that the Department of National Defence should be asked to pay twice as much for an aircraft in terms of its capital cost when other government departments will utilize to an extensive degree the capacities and capabilities of this aircraft.
Those are the four areas upon which I should like the parliamentary secretary to touch. I think we would be enlightened and grateful, and I appreciate his being here this evening.


Mr. Walter Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to answer the hon. member's questions in three minutes. I shall begin by speaking on the interim financing arrangements for the Lockheed contract.
Regarding the interim financing for the Lockheed contract, it must be recognized that, as the contracting agency for most government departments, the Department of Supply and Services is not directly responsible for the provision of program funds to support the requirements of customers. Officers of the department and, particularly, the DSS members of the LRPA joint project office have been actively assisting the Department of National
Adjournment Debate
Defence in endeavours to resolve the DND cash shortfall in the early years of the program.
The matter has not been finalized as of this date and we have been requested to enter into an option arrangement with Lockheed whereby the price, schedules, and industrial benefits for the LRPA acquisition would be protected through April, 1976. This afternoon the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) said that he hoped to be in a position to make an announcement soon.
Let me now say a word with regard to the authority to spend the money. The cabinet initially approved the selection of the Lockheed P3 LRPA aircraft on November 27, 1975, and approval to contract was issued by Treasury Board on December 2, 1975. On this basis a conditional acceptance of Lockheed's offer which otherwise would have expired was issued in order to preserve the integrity of the offer, including price and Canadian industrial benefits. The same approval process has been followed in the case of the recently negotiated option to extend the original conditions, price, and benefits to April 30, 1976.
The hon. member also raised another question concerning the P3 LRPA. The aircraft is essentially configured to meet specific defence requirements, although certain items of surveillance equipment can also be utilized for non-military purposes such as pollution protection, ice reconnaissance and so on. During the definition phase a policy decision was made not to ask other departments to contribute to capital costs. However, new tasks could arise in future and cost recovery principles may apply when the aircraft are used on missions dedicated for other departments.
The Minister of National Defence has said on several occasions that negotiations taking place between the Lockheed company and the banks are going ahead in a constructive way. Earlier today, replying to the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), the minister said that negotiations are in the final stages and an announcement will be made shortly. There is no change from the initially expressed intention of the Department of National Defence to proceed with the contract for the Lockheed long-range patrol aircraft which is to replace the Argus.


AIRPORTS-PICKERING-PLANS FOR USE OF LAND IN VIEW OF ABANDONMENT OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, the question I am raising tonight is connected with the question I directed initially to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on April 7.1 then directed it to the acting Minister of Transport, who was then the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey); he, in turn, referred the question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Goo-dale) who said, as reported at page 12580 of Hansard, ".... I will certainly bring the question to the attention of the minister."
My question concerned Pickering. I simply asked if the government intended to return the Pickering area lands to previous owners and, if not, what exactly did the government propose to do with those lands. I asked the question even though in the last two or three years 84 oral questions concerning Pickering have been directed to the government. There is still tremendous doubt on what the govern-

April 26, 1976
Adjournment Debate
ment's decision is to be on this unfortunately conceived project.
I asked my question because current statistics show that air travel in Canada and in many other parts of the world has, so to speak, "plateau-ed out." The government's repeated statements that somehow Malton will become overcrowded do not appear to be backed up by existing statistics. I would also point out that another tragedy, Mirabel, is perhaps becoming the most costly white elephant in the world. I think that we, as members of this House, have to accept the responsibility of ensuring that the government, in spite of itself, does not create a still more costly white elephant than Mirabel is at the present time.
I say this because when we review both the answers to written questions on this subject and to oral questions, we find there is a great discrepancy among the ministers who respond to the questions. For example, as long ago as May 1, 1974, in answer to a written question, the then parliamentary secretary to the minister of transport stated that the total cost, expressed in 1973 dollars, of Pickering would be $434,429,000. That seems to have been the high admitted cost of Pickering. Ever since, ministers one after another have played down the total cost of this concept, sometimes stating it might be about $200 million that is committed.
We know from the current estimates that the government is still proposing to spend money on Pickering in spite of the fact it is clear the majority of those in the Toronto area do not want this airport. It is clear the Ontario government has asked that the airport be delayed.
In short, my question of April 7 was simply one of clarification; would the present administration now tell us what it proposes to do with these lands, not only the expropriated lands, but the noise lands that it has so unfairly caused to be frozen surrounding the Pickering airport site?
Last fall my colleague from Blind River asked what it proposed to do with the farm land it had expropriated. At that time the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) indicated the government was going to endeavour to get farmers to come in and farm it while it waited for the actual development of Pickering. Hopefully the answer tonight will give some further knowledge. Has it in fact rented the land for farm purposes? Spring is here. It is important that those
18,000	acres be devoted as much as possible to agricultural production.
Historical sites are involved. What is the government's position? Has it finally accepted that there are certain significant historical sites there that should not be permanently destroyed, as was apparently the original intention of the present administration?
I would also like to point out that there has been much talk about the Gibson report. When you review the questions in this House, there was great anxiety on the part of the members as to the position of that inquiry. Subsequently there was a general feeling that the Gibson report gave fairly good evidence that the present administration should not continue with the project as originally intended. What is the attitude of the present administration? Does it intend to proceed in spite of the Gibson report, and

in spite of the attitude of the Ontario government that the project should not be allowed to continue?
It is time that the present administration gave us a candid answer. I hope it will come to its senses and say that it has agreed to abandon the project, it was an unfortunate concept in the beginning, it was something of a civil service dream that it finally realizes is not needed, and that the money that would be spent on Pickering will be spent on a much more worth-while cause than was originally proposed.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond this evening to my friend, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). I believe this is the first opportunity that I have had during a late show proceeding in this House to discuss an issue with the hon. gentleman. I take the gist of his question to be this: what plans does the Government of Canada have with respect to the land involved in the Pickering airport site?
While final statistics are not yet available, there appears to have been little or no growth in Toronto's air traffic during 1975, but this in itself is not sufficient reason to throw away for all time the option for the people of the Toronto area ultimately to establish airport facilities at the Pickering site. There have also been slowdowns in the past, but the hard lesson that must be learned in the art of forecasting demand for airport facilities is that one cannot decide major long term options on the basis of short term fluctuations in traffic.
We have reason to believe that the 1975 air traffic pattern is just that, a short term fluctuation in what would still appear to be an over-all upward trend, at least in the foreseeable future. This growth plateau is not surprising when one considers economic conditions in 1975 and the unusually high rate of growth between 1971 and 1974; Toronto traffic increased 56 per cent over those three years in comparison with total United States traffic growth of about 20 per cent in the same period.
On the likely basis then that traffic will increase again, it remains the view of the federal government that a second airport may well be needed in the Toronto area. For this reason it is our intention to retain the option for the people of Toronto of providing needed airport facilities at some time in the future. Whether facilities are needed in 1980 or 1985 does not alter the long term need. The government cannot wilfully commit itself to a course of action such as has been suggested, one which would inevitably mean the loss of all flexibility in meeting future needs.
At present Toronto handles about 25 per cent of the nation's air traffic, and we feel that failure to provide adequate facilities in the area would ultimately hamper Toronto's ability to compete effectively on an economic basis with other cities in North America. In the meantime the land at Pickering will be retained by the federal government and is being put to productive use through leasing of the properties for farming.
As most people are now aware, at the time of expropriation over 50 per cent of the airport site was owned by speculative interests and only about 10,500 acres of the
18,000	total acres were being actively farmed. The production yield from the site was considerably below the aver-
April 26, 1976

age for similar agricultural land elsewhere in Ontario. Since the expropriation we have attempted to maximize the use of the land by leasing all the rentable residential and farm property. At present some 14,000 acres are devoted to farming, an increase of over 33 per cent since the land was acquired. The government has committed itself to developing a long term program to maximize agricultural production on the site, even in the event airport facilities are developed.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member agrees that the only responsible course of action is the one we are presently following. It allows adequate flexibility in the long term while making the best use of present facilities in the short term. At the same time, the agricultural resources now in the government's charge at the Pickering site are being productively managed to the advantage of the Toronto area.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-CAMBODIA-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS-SUGGESTED WITHDRAWAL OF AID
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to expand this evening on a question I first asked on March 18, and continued to repeat as lately as April 7. In so doing I wish to quote from the Sunday Times, a British newspaper, of April 18, a date subsequent to my last raising of this subject. I propose to quote from an article by Jon Swain, named "Journalist of the Year" in the 1975 British press awards for his despatches on the fall of Cambodia to the Communists. He has now returned to the borders of that country to report on the tragic and profound revolution forced on its people in just one year. He says:
If any country deserves the world's compassion and interest it is Cambodia.
Nevertheless, the attempts made by myself and others in this House to obtain any sort of response when we raise this subject have been met with precious little interest and, certainly, with no compassion.
Writing about this particular revolution, Mr. Swain says:
It is now clear that this has obliterated what little progress had been made in the past hundred years and destroyed an ancient civilization which had stayed intact for centuries.
He goes on to say:
But it has been the Khmer Rouge, forcing a uniquely painful brand of communism on to a bewildered, demoralized peasantry at the point of a gun, that has prolonged and darkened the tragedy.
Further he says:
Probably the world will never know how many Cambodians have died or had their lives irreparably broken by the Khmer Rouge's rush to force a new society ...
Other reports have been bold enough to estimate the dead to be as high as 600,000. The government's hesitancy to display any interest in this area is to me very strange. I can recall during the twenty-seventh parliament we were constantly sending special missions to Hanoi, which is not all that far from Phnom Penh in Cambodia, in an endeavour to lessen hostilities. No amount of American bombing or danger could keep us out of Hanoi at that time.
Adjournment Debate
We found a way to overcome every obstacle and to send our special representatives to Hanoi.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we know that the government, which oddly enough does not even have a parliamentary secretary in the House at the moment to respond to my question, is prepared to make a big gesture in responding to conditions in some other parts of the world. We have seen in the last few weeks threats to cut off federal assistance to the Olympics for the Handicapped because a South African team, which was integrated, was permitted to enter that competition. The action of the federal government at that moment was swift and sure. I find it a strange double standard.
I made inquiries whether this country was prepared to send a special mission to Cambodia to ascertain what had happened in that country. I received no response. I inquired whether our aid to the Khmer Republic had been cut off and was told there was no aid. This was reassuring because in 1972 our aid amounted to $30,000, in 1973 to $50,000, and in 1974 to $100,000. I notice the parliamentary secretary has now arrived so perhaps I can have an answer to my questions.
If this accelerated rate in the growth of aid to the Khmer Republic has been cut off, I wonder when it was cut off and what was the motive. Was it their unilateral action, or was it as a protest by this country against the situation developing in that part of the world once the communist Khmer regime had taken over? I admit the amounts spent were small, but was there no residue of good will in that country? Cannot we find among the representatives in that area over the years someone we could send to that country to plead for some respect of human life and to give an indication of our interest in and compassion for that extremely troubled land?


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Okanagan Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) has spoken on several occasions about the question of aid to Cambodia. He mentioned previously that the United States deemed it timely to withdraw their aid. Now, I fail to see the relevancy of this statement to Canada. In fact, this country no longer provides assistance to Cambodia since April 1975 and no aid program is being considered for the time being. No Canadian diplomat is accredited with the Cambodian government and the contacts we have with the few Cambodian diplomats posted abroad are very casual.
I think he will remember that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and myself have declared on several occasions that it was extremely difficult to obtain reliable information on what is going on in Cambodia at the moment. None of our allies has any diplomat stationed in Phom Penh and reporters have no access to the country. According to our information, chances are very remote that this situation will change in a forseeable future because the Cambodian regime has clearly indicated that it is not interested in receiving diplomatic missions from countries that recognized the former regime of General Lon Nol, of which Canada was.
Their attitude is the same with regard to international agencies which managed assistance programs under the

April 26, 1976
Adjournment Debate
former regime. Their representatives were expelled from Cambodia at the same time as all other foreigners in the spring of 1975. Even the International Red Cross, which tried to reestablish ties with its Cambodian branch, has had no success to date. The policy of isolationism, devoid of any practical concessions, of the present Cambodian government makes it therefore extremely difficult for the Canadian government to attempt to get information on the development of events in that country.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, to my mind, there is little probability that the United Nations will be asked to
look into the matter of the rights of the people and all other related matters unless individuals or non-governmental groups, with a first hand and reliable knowledge of recent events in Cambodia, bring forth directly a grievance for violation of human rights before the agency of the General Assembly of the UN entrusted with that type of problem, as that is the procedure that must be followed when human rights are violated, or in cases of torture, which cases have repeatedly been reported as occurring in Cambodia.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Tuesday, April 27, 1976