1977-06-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity affecting public servants who reside in the province of Ontario but who work in Hull, Quebec, who, without consultation or reasons are required to observe St-Jean Baptiste Day and who have been denied the option they formerly had with respect to that day. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the government rescind this new directive, which requires public servants who reside in Ontario to observe Saint-Jean Baptiste Day and reinstate the optional policy which has worked so well in former years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM PROPOSAL TO END PROGRAM IMMEDIATELY-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning the consumer price index figures which were released today. In light of the fact that prices have risen in the last three months at an annual rate of 10.4 per cent, that filel and utility prices have risen in the last year by 15.8 per cent, that the cost of home ownership has risen by 11.3 per cent in the last year, that the cost of food is now beginning to rise at a rate even faster than other prices and considering that the government persists in holding down the wages and salaries of ordinary Canadians at a time when it will not hold down prices of such basic commodities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the government to end its unfair and unworkable anti-inflation program immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of press reports that Senator Keith Davey, chief campaign director for the Liberal Party and confidant of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), has a controlling interest in the Blue Water Racing Associates Ltd. and has made representations to the Department of Agriculture, specifically Mr. Sid Pratt, director of parimutuel betting in the Department of Agriculture, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
[DOT] (UlO)
That the Minister of Agriculture make a full statement on motions, giving full particulars of the disclosure of the interest of Senator Keith Davey in Blue Water Racing Associates Ltd. to the government, on the nature of Senator Davey's representations to the Department of Agriculture and any resulting decisions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of such motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONGRATULATIONS TO CERTAIN MEMBERS ON TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF ELECTION TO PARLIAMENT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to present a motion under Standing Order 43 which I believe the House will be happy to approve. So sure am I that the House will approve it, that I am going to ask the

June 10, 1977
Oral Questions
President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) if I may name him as the seconder of the motion.
I therefore move, seconded by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen):
That this House extends its congratulations to the hon. member for Cumber-land-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the hon. member for Saint-Henri (Mr. Loiselle), the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie), the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir), the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), and the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), on the anniversary of their first election to parliament 20 years ago today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of such a "controversial" motion requires the unanimous consent of the House pursuant to the Standing Order. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and seconded by the President of the Privy Council that this House extend its congratulations to those hon. members mentioned on the 20th anniversary, today, of their election to this House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Since figures on today's consumer price index show that prices are up over 10 per cent on an annualized basis and controls are no longer working to slow inflation, and since the minister recently said that the underlying trend to lower inflation is evident despite today's higher prices, will he now concede controls are no longer the solution to inflation but perhaps part of the problem and announce the date immediately on which he proposes to begin decontrol?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to point out that the hon. gentleman's analysis is faulty. While it is true that there has been an increase on the food price side, as he and other members have often recognized publicly the cost of imported food cannot be restrained with a controls program.


John Edward Broadbent: This was true last year, too.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It was true indeed, and the price of food will go up and down; but to blame or credit the program for that would be a mistake, and nobody has ever

done that. I point out to the hon. member on the other hand that the part of the price index most effectively controlled, that is to say the non-food sector, is exactly on target with the 1977 guideline of the program.


John Edward Broadbent: That is not so.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is down to an annual rise of 6 per cent. Perhaps I should not go further at this point, except to say that I look forward to starting the debate on this particular question on Monday, as a result of the petition which I gather hon. members will be putting forward, and we shall have, all have an opportunity on Monday to debate these issues.


INFLATION-POSSIBLE REVISION OF TARGET FOR NEXT YEAR
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind today's background figure of 7.6 per cent annual inflation, will the minister say if he foresees such a relatively high level of inflation continuing for the balance of the calendar year and, based on these disappointing figures, does the government plan to revise its 4 per cent inflation target for next year? If so, what is its new target?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Anti-Inflation Act makes specific provision for this. I would point out that we expect the impact of the increase due to imported food prices to diminish as the Canadian crop comes on, assuming it is a favourable Canadian crop. In this regard, while it may be difficult to make the six per cent target on the overall food consumer price index we do expect a turndown.


INFLATION-DATE WHEN CONTROLS WILL BE REMOVED
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Two weeks ago the minister stated in committee that "the economic situation throughout 1977 and into 1978 looks relatively favourable for exit from the controls program". Will the minister indicate if in view of today's inflation figures he still holds this view?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I also indicated both in committee and elsewhere, including in the green paper, other conditions which are important. As I said, I indicated to the President of the Privy Council my wish that we start the debate on the petition which, according to the media, the hon. member is ready to present. We could start that debate on Monday. On Monday I would be quite happy to go through in some detail the circumstances that will be necessary to be sure that inflation will be restrained when the controls come off. Of course, it will be useful at that time to find out what, if any, views the opposition has about that.
June 10, 1977


FOOD PRICES-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO REDUCE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. It relates to the scandalous increase in food prices during the first part of 1977, now running at a 15.2 per cent annual rate during the last three months. As everyone in this House knows, this can only act as a heavy blow to low income families, old age pensioners and others on fixed income. In spite of everything that has been said by the government, it is clear in the green paper that some further upward impact of price levels in Canada will arise from high energy costs and food prices. Again there will be obvious implications for low income Canadians and Canadians living on fixed incomes who will be prejudiced by government policy and inaction. Notwithstanding the motherhood statement we are about to get on food policy in the House in a few minutes, what immediate action can we anticipate from the government to alleviate this situation, specifically in the area of food prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously patently wrong with respect to government policy having adversely affected those at the bottom end of the income scale. The policies of this government have been substantially directed to supporting the incomes of pensioners or recipients of family allowances at the bottom end of the income scale. Whatever effect the application of controls may have had upon the more affluent in our society, it is quite clear that the controls program specifically favoured those in a position least able to protect themselves from inflationary increases.


FINANCE
William Heward Grafftey: It is obvious the minister has not talked to low income Canadians and those living on fixed incomes recently. It is now apparent that the prices of basic items are rising far faster than the official rate of inflation. We know that today fuel is up 15.8 per cent, housing 9.7 per cent for the year and food up 15.2 per cent on an annual rate for the last three months. Pension indexing is falling behind the real cost of living for our senior citizens. Will the minister tell the House whether he will tie the indexation of old age security to an index which better reflects the needs of elderly Canadians, especially in view of what we obviously have today?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not I am in touch, I might say I have been in touch with those in the low income group and old age pensioners in the course of the recent Ontario provincial election in the constituency of St. George. If anybody is out of touch with the feelings in that part of Ontario, it is the hon. member and his party, as indicated by last night's vote. If there are changes to be made in the consumer price index or
Oral Questions
the impact of it on the indexing of old age pensions and other escalators, I will of course give full consideration to that with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I note he is delighted that the Liberals managed to win two seats in all metro Toronto; that is some victory! In an earlier answer he indicated he was happy with the controls program with the exception of its effect on food prices over which, he finally admitted, there was no control at all. Is the minister happy about the fact that fuel and utilities have gone up 15.8 per cent over the last year and the cost of home ownership has gone up 11.3 per cent? Or is he happy simply because under the controls program wages and salaries will be held down to 6 per cent, meaning a decline in real purchasing power of workers right across the country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to the Ontario election, what did please me was that the Ontario leader of the NDP looks the same kind of leader as the hon. member does, namely, that he is going backwards.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to important additional costs in the community, the hon. gentleman knows with regard to energy prices, for example, that these are additional costs which we in our community will have to absorb. I would be very much happier if the world trend in fuel prices were toward a decrease rather than an increase, but we live in a world of reality, and the reality is that fuel prices are increasing. If hon. members opposite do not understand basic things like that, we can expect a very interesting debate next week when they attempt to explain how, in the face of the reality of increasing fuel prices, the cost of utilities can go down.


REQUEST THAT NO INCREASE BE ALLOWED IN PRICE OF OIL
John Edward Broadbent: The minister has mentioned the one area over which the government does have control, namely, oil prices. A large part of the monumental increase in fuel and utility costs in the past year is the direct result of the government's fuel pricing policy. Would the minister now reconsider the decision to permit a further increase in the price of oil on July 1? May I remind him that if the price of oil goes up by a dollar a barrel it will mean an increase of at least one per cent in the consumer price index and lead directly to the loss of thousands of jobs? Will he assure Canadians that no price increase will be permitted in the price of oil as of July 1 ?
6524

June 10, 1977
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member should know, as the premier of Saskatchewan knows, that it is important to continue to provide supplies of oil for Canada in the future. The kind of policy he advocates, that of reducing oil prices, would ensure that before very long there would not be adequate supplies of oil to meet Canadian needs.


INFLATION-ALLEGED FAILURE OF CONTROL PROGRAM
John Edward Broadbent: Is it, then, official government policy that wages and salaries should remain controlled at 6 per cent while the consumer price index is to be permitted, as has been the case for the last three months, to go up at an annual rate of about 10 per cent causing working people across the country to experience a continuing decline in their standard of living, or will the minister recognize that the controls program as it now exists is not only unworkable in terms of restraining prices but is unfair to Canadians everywhere?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would dispute the conclusions reached by the hon. gentleman and refer him to the trend on the non-food side of the index. The fact of the matter is that we in Canada will have to pay higher costs for imported goods as a result of the depreciation in the value of the Canadian dollar and higher energy prices. These increases have to be borne by all Canadians. We, as a government, believe that the people will recognize and accept the fact that these additional cost increases have to be met and that they cannot expect the government to cushion the community against all the changes.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I
I put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on May 13 last and he replied that the price of gas at the Quebec and Ontario border indicated a difference of over 15 cents a gallon which was due to competition. Could the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs launch an inquiry to see why there is such a difference and who pockets the money?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to ask the director of investigations to look into this matter and report back to me, and I will be getting in touch with the hon. member.



CONFLICT OF INTEREST


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It has to do with press reports that Senator Keith Davey, who is a well known confidant of the Prime Minister and chief Liberal campaign director, has the controlling interest in Blue Water Racing Associates, and that Senator Davey has in fact made representations to the branch of the minister's department concerned with parimutuel betting licensing and saliva testing administration. Can the minister advise the House whether these press reports are correct and if his department has knowledge of Senator Davey's interest in this particular company?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the press report the hon. member is talking about, all I can remember of that paper is that when 1 was first appointed Minister of Agriculture they wanted to know where Amherstburg, Ontario was. I have no knowledge of what is in this press report because I do not read that paper very often. However, since the matter has been brought to my attention I will check. I have no recollection of Senator Davey ever making any representations to me concerning racing but I will check with the department. Several authorities in Ontario having to do with racing have made representations to me about racing matters, but the one I am particularly thinking of is the Jockey Club which continually makes representations about offtrack betting. But I have no recollection of this report at all.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister would be interested in seeing that justice not only be done but appear to be done, so I would ask him to look into the matter and report to the House with respect to this particular allegation. When he is doing that, would the minister undertake to make a statement to the House with respect to this matter, possibly on motions, so he can clarify it; and would he let us have what details he is able to obtain through his department respecting the nature of the representations made, if any, by Senator Davey and the results of those representations.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I will use my good offices to make an investigation to find out what representations were made. I am not sure which race track or racing authority the hon. member is talking about, but I will ask for a complete breakdown of those people who have made representations to me and will follow the proper course to allow the hon. member to be informed.



INTEREST OF SENATOR DAVEY IN BLUE WATER RACING ASSOCIATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question which I will address to the Acting Prime Minister. Would the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether he considers on behalf of the government.
June 10, 1977

that there is a potential conflict of interest situation here, where the campaign director supporting the government party and advising the Prime Minister, in fact controls a company which has dealings with a department of the federal government in the area of racing, parimutuel betting licensing and saliva testing administration. Would the Acting Prime Minister consider this to be a genuine conflict of interest, and would he say whether directives will be coming out regarding the relationship between people Holding positions of this nature and government departments?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not examined this case and therefore I am not in a position to say whether it represents a conflict of interest.
I am sure that Senator Davey has behaved in accordance with proper standards, as is his custom. However, the general question of conflict of interest with respect to members of parliament has been, as the hon. member knows, the subject of a green paper. It has gone through parliamentary committee in the House of Commons and in the Senate. At the present time, as the hon. member knows, there is under preparation a bill which will be coming forward, dealing with the general question of the independence of parliament. Until that bill is passed, there is certainly a good deal of opinion and guidelines to be derived from the green paper and from the proceedings of the committees of both Houses.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr:
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact the increase in the cost of living is affecting those veterans on fixed incomes, I wonder if the minister could indicate to the House when he is going to correct the inequity in the basic rate of pension which is related to the five lowest categories in the public service. Those veterans are falling behind by hundreds of dollars a year, and 1 wonder if the minister can indicate when he is going to correct that inequity in the veterans' legislation.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have had a study made in our department of this question and a lot of work has been done. As far as the exact time it will be implemented, 1 am not prepared to say at this time.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that veterans' spouses are faced with an inequity because they cannot get widows' pensions if their veteran husbands died when their pension was based on 48 per cent disability, I wonder if the minister could indicate, in line with the basic rate of pension, whether we will see changes in the legislation before the end of this session?
Oral Questions


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is not anticipated that there will be changes in legislation pertaining to either of those questions during this session.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. It relates to the task force report to the environmental contaminants committee regarding Mirex. One recommendation made by the task force concerning the control of Mirex is contained in one short sentence, wherein the task force recommends a prohibition against importation, manufacturing and processing of Mirex which might lead to its dispersal into the environment.
Is there any manufacturing or processing of Mirex in Canada, and if so, will the minister respond positively to the recommendation? Is there importation of Mirex which might be dispersed into the environment, and will he respond positively to the task force recommendation that such importation be prohibited?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the use of Mirex in Canada ceased some time ago. If my memory is correct, it was 1969. Thus, there is no utilization and no manufacturing. As for importation, that has stopped also. The complete prohibition is something which I will be discussing with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but we are favourably disposed to this recommendation.



SUGGESTION INDUSTRIAL WORKERS, NURSING MOTHERS AND THEIR BABIES EXPOSED TO MIREX BE MONITORED- GOVERNMENT ACTION

William Herbert Jarvis: June 10, 1977
Oral Questions
selves. In one conversation with them, we have already mentioned this important factor. This is a joint report because of our concern about this problem. We are obviously working on this.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, can either the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment or the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell me whether these two groups of people have been identified? In other words, in order to monitor one must identify those Canadians-the mothers on the one hand and the workers on the other-who may have been exposed to Mirex? Have these two groups been identified as of this date? Is it necessary, before any monitoring can take place, to identify individuals within those two groups?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the report did identify areas in which the exposure had been greatest. These are the areas in which we are now involved and looking at.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It might be difficult for him to give me an answer today, but I would ask him to take notice of the question. My question relates to a recent increase in air freight to $1.11 a pound to certain points in the northern part of our country, as a result of a rate increase which was applied for by a company called Surf Air, which is wholly owned by Nordair. I would like to ask the minister what special evidence or circumstance was contained in the application which prevented this rate increase from being referred to the Air Transport Board and what special evidence there was which prevented the application from going to the Anti-Inflation Board for scrutiny as well?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to review these rates. There was an earlier reference to them in the House and I found, while some of the increases were indeed very large, that in part those were adjustments in schedules and there were some increases which were not nearly so large. However, on examination it did appear that there may not have been adequate advance notice of the increases for people to take a position in opposition to them. Since there was notice and no intervention against them at all, the Canadian Transport Commission had not acted. They are now reviewing that situation to see whether in fact the people in question were given adequate notice of the proposed rate increases.
[Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent).1



INCREASE IN AIR FREIGHT RATES TO ARCTIC COMMUNITIES- POSSIBILITY OF SUBSIDY

Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer. In fact there was no advertising of the proposed rates before they came into effect. In light of recent increases in the cost of living index, and particularly food, which affects people in the northern regions of our country three times as much as it does people in the southern part, will the minister undertake to discuss with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development the possibility, if these rates are allowed to continue, that there should be a subsidy for the people who are affected by this rate?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in the House before that the whole question of remote areas and the cost of transportation in relation to them is something we are reviewing. I will be interested in the views of my colleague representing the northern areas.



PERFORMING ARTS


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State. In view of a statement attributed to an official of the Canadian Film Institute that the institute would consider very seriously any complaint by the government about films being shown in the auditorium of the National Archives, has the minister taken any initiative in approaching the institute regarding its current summer program, much of which is described by the institute's own program as pornographic?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I referred the member's previous indication of discontent with the policy of the archives in renting the auditorium for this particular series of films with which he disagrees to the archives. I gather he is asking me to make a similar representation to the Canadian Film Institute. I would be happy to pass on his remarks to them.



POSSIBILITY OF PROTEST FROM ONTARIO AT SHOWING OF FILM &quot;SWEET MOVIE&quot;

Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker,
I would be interested in knowing the direction of the reference by the minister to the National Archives. Has the minister received any protest from the government of Ontario or the Board of Film Review at the attempt to use the auditorium of the National Archives to show the film "Sweet Movie", specifically banned in Ontario?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, I have received no such representation. However, I have received a representation from one of
June 10, 1977

my colleagues sitting on this side of the House, the hon. member for Vancouver East.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Given the fact that the Solicitor General has indicated he will be making a statement next week with regard to the Montreal break-in by the RCMP, and given the fact that in addition to the incidents surrounding the break-in in Montreal, we still find there are allegations against the RCMP in the Praxis matter in Toronto, and there is an inquiry going on at present in New Brunswick, and there are allegations of illegal wiretapping in Edmonton, would the minister give some assurance to the House that he or the Solicitor General will make a statement on motions in addition to the Montreal matter, on all these other matters that are showing up in the press so that he can give some assurance to the Canadian people that there is still civil and political authority over illegal activities and over the RCMP itself so that we can have a full explanation from the government on what is the relationship between the government and the RCMP in dealing with these matters?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member has really answered his question. He has referred to the Solicitor General's statement which is to be made following sentencing in the Montreal case, and I suggest that that statement will deal with the matters to which the hon. member refers. In terms of assurances to the public, the Solicitor General has made it very clear in the House and outside the House, as have I and as has the Prime Minister, that the police forces of this country, including the RCMP, are as subject to the criminal law of the country as is any other citizen, and that where there are indications of any breach of law by people holding authority, the proper action will be taken.



INVESTIGATION OF ROYAL AMERICAN SHOWS-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE USE OF NATIONAL SECURITY PROVISION NOT RELATED TO ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I hope that the Minister of Justice will examine carefully the evidence given yesterday in Montreal concerning the lack of any consultation with political authority in terms of that illegal break-in.
My supplementary question is as follows. Yesterday the Solicitor General indicated that he is filing an affidavit in the case of the inquiry in Edmonton into the Royal American Shows that certain evidence should not be produced because it is sensitive to national security. Can the Minister of Justice, on behalf of this government, now give some assurance to the
Oral Questions
House that the use of the national security provision to stop introduction of evidence that may be relevant has nothing to do with the use of electronic devices surrounding the surveillance in that case?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have not seen the Solicitor General's affidavit in that case, and before answering the question I would like to see it.



INCOME TAX ACT


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the end of June is soon approaching and the income tax amendment bill following his recent budget would have to be handled entirely in the House, can the minister advise us when he intends to introduce it and obtain its first reading?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I expect to have the document brought forward for first reading next Wednesday.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it is with respect to the follow-up of the Helsinki conference, the Belgrade meetings which are approaching shortly and the great interest with respect to Basket 3 and the human rights provision. In view of the fact that at the recent meetings of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group a congressional representative indicated that the U.S. was taking a very active part, both in the formation of the policies that would be laid before that meeting, as well as having a direct participation in the conference, has the minister given consideration to parliamentary representation at the Belgrade meetings, and will there be some opportunity prior to those meetings for there to be some notification to parliament of the stand which the government intends to take at that time?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of the representation and the make-up of the Canadian delegation, no final decision has been made as yet. The hon. member is quite right that in view of the structure of the United States there are some members of the Congress who are actually part of their delegation in an official and formal way which, I am advised, cannot be done in terms of the Canadian system.


Mr. Paproski:: Why?

June 10, 1977
Oral Questions


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Because their structure is quite different from ours. I will deal with the hon. member's question, if he wishes to put a supplementary, in just a moment.
Certainly from a personal point of view I have no objection to considering parliamentary representation and I think it would be a good thing. I should add that there is also some question as to whether it will be at the ministerial level, and we are looking into that question as well.
On the second point, yesterday I gave to the chairman of the committee the most recent monitoring process and some background material on the post-Helsinki agreement. I have also said that I would be glad to have members of the committee briefed. At that kind of meeting before the Belgrade conference, I hope we can decide whether we wish to have any kind of resolution of the House or any airing of it in the House, which again I would be quite happy to support.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I appreciate very much the minister's frank and thoughtful answer. I am very interested in this inasmuch as not only will there be U.S. parliamentary participation but, I understand, there will be some European parliamentary groups as well, perhaps, as the minister has indicated, not in the same way because of the different functional set-up of the U.S. Congress and administration. But since there have been a number of useful precedents with respect to parliamentary representation at various U.N. forums, such as the Law of the Sea Conference and UNCTAD and other events, I hope the minister will give serious consideration to an all party representation at this event. But I hope as well that perhaps the minister might indicate whether he would be prepared to see either a reference or some opportunity established for the Committee on External Affairs to meet with him and his officials, both in a formal way and, perhaps if necessary, in an in-camera session, because of the importance of this event not only to parliament but to the Canadian people.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That was what I was seeking to convey in my last answer. In other words, whatever the committee decides is the most fruitful approach I am prepared to accept by way of briefings and the like. I was not aware there were any parliamentarians planning to attend the conference other than those from the United States. But it may be that this is a more recent development which has come out of discussions which have taken place on the make up of the delegations.



MULTICULTURALISM


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Multiculturalism). I refer to a speech made by the former minister in charge of multiculturalism to the Canada Ethnic Press Federation on
[Mr. Paproski.l
March 11, 1977. In his address, the hon. member for Hamilton East indicated the following:
There is agreement that many more government departments should advertise in the ethnic press and media... (and that) this will lead to additional revenues over and above the $500,000 spent by the multicultural program and the specific campaigns run by such departments as the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
Would the minister inform the House whether he is actively promoting this policy among government departments?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of State (Multicul-turalism)):: Mr. Speaker, this is under active review at the moment by officials of the department and members of the Department of the Secretary of State. It has been followed very closely. An announcement will be made on that, I hope, soon.


Steve Eugene Paproski: My supplementary question is to ask the minister whether he will inform the House what revenues over and above the $500,000 have been spent on the ethnic press and media advertising to date, and would the minister indicate how much money will be allocated by his department for the ethnic press and media advertising?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The answer to that question can be sought in another way.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I think the minister would be the first one to agree with me that animals suffering from diseases should be kept out of the food supply, and to achieve this end inspection of abattoirs must be carried out under close supervision of people trained in the diagnosis of disease, such as veterinarians. In view of this, it has come to my attention that it is proposed to revise the regulations under the Canada Meat Inspection Act to eliminate the requirement that antemortem inspection be done by a veterinary inspector and as well eliminate post-mortem inspection by a veterinarian or under the direct supervision of a veterinary inspector. If that is true I would like to ask the minister if he would take whatever action is necessary to stop this proposed revision before irreversible actions are taken that will adversely affect our ability to assure the public of a continuing wholesome and disease-free meat supply.


Eugene Whelan: I will check that to make doubly sure that nothing is being done to lower the high standard of inspection which we provide for meat products in Canada. I do know that there has been some discussion about training technicians. We do use many highly
June 10, 1977

trained technicians to do this work, but I will look into this and report to the hon. member.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: The minister knows that without competent veterinary inspection in our abattoirs our meat exports to many countries would be adversely affected, and I ask the minister to do everything possible to see that this is done.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On February 8 in the House of Commons when discussing Bill C-35 which deals with reciprocal agreements for pensioners the minister stated that France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States have expressed interest in having reciprocal social security agreements with us, and that preliminary discussions among officials had resulted in proposals. 1 wonder if the minister could tell us if the agreements will be effective by the date the bill becomes effective, I believe July 1. If not, why not, and when does he hope that the agreements will be effective?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no. I personally met the ministers of the countries concerned last month. I exerted some pressure upon these governments to accelerate the settlement of agreements between our respective countries. There will be a meeting of senior officials in the coming months. We hope these agreements will be concluded very shortly, but, of course, I cannot in any way force a country to sign such an agreement. On the aspect in which the hon. member is interested, British citizens living in Canada, I obtained an agreement in principle from my British colleague, but he indicated his concern about the availability of funds in England for that purpose. I asked that the matter be raised again by our two governments, in order that the British government may make available the necessary funds so as to enable us to reach an agreement as soon as possible.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. In view of the fact that there are approximately 115 aircraft of many types used in dropping water or chemical retardants on or in advance of forest fires, most of them being
Oral Questions
modified military surplus aircraft such as the Canso or Tracker or commercial aircraft like the Beaver and the Otter, while the only aircraft in the world designed specifically to combat forest fires is the Canadair CL-215, designed and built in the sixties under advice from experts in the Canadian forestry service, but which has been purchased in Canada only by the Quebec department of lands and forests which now has 15 in operation, I would like to ask the minister if he would indicate why this aircraft is not used by other provinces in Canada and what steps he is taking to help finance the purchase of this aircraft for use in what I term a very important protection measure for our forest industries?


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. member is alluding to the use of these aircraft for water bombing to fight forest fires. This question came up at the meeting of the Canadian Council of Resources and Environment Ministers in Saskatoon. Everyone recognizes that there is a need to co-ordinate this type of equipment and to have it available on a national basis when emergencies do warrant it. The problem is that the provinces have tended to go their separate ways with regard to fire protection. If we can come to a national plan for forest protection, I hope it would be very much part of this plan to have very expensive equipment of this nature available on a demand basis under some shared-cost formula.



FINANCE


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I would like to ask the minister if the program with regard to the tariff on tomatoes, which was implemented earlier this year after repeated requests from both processers and producers, is being reviewed. Is it going to be extended?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice, but I undertake to get back to the hon. member personally on that point.



PROPOSED FORMATION OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION TO ACQUIRE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST IN CROWN CORPORATIONS

Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. Will the government consider taking the lead of the British Columbia government, which is planning to form a private investment corporation which will not be a Crown corporation to take over the government's interests-in the case of British Columbia acquired through the interventionist policies of the previous socialist government-in a number of industrial concerns and to offer the shares to individual investors who currently, in British Columbia's case, have nearly $6 billion in savings

June 10, 1977
Oral Questions
accounts, thus providing investment opportunity for other Canadians and relieving the Canadian taxpayers of the need to subsidize the bad management currently exhibited by some Crown corporations and agencies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. gentleman that some years ago the government did just that with the creation of the Canada Development Corporation, and we included among the CDC's assets the Polysar operation. As the hon. member knows, CDC has since had a public distribution of shares, and depending upon the circumstances of the market and the fortunes of the various investments it would seek to distribute even more of the shares to the general public. I can say that in general terms the principle is one which has been accepted here for some time, and it is one we hope to further.



POST OFFICE


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. Given the fact that thousands of post boxes in Toronto have labels on them indicating that local first class mail posted before 5.30 p.m. will be delivered the next day in Toronto, including Long Branch, East York, Leaside and North Toronto, and given the fact that this is patently false, is the Postmaster General planning to change the labelling of those boxes in Toronto?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out following the hon. gentleman's question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that surely does not constitute the assurance or the guarantee that that mail is going to be delivered by that time. It is an indication as to when the mail should be dropped into those particular boxes so that effective delivery can be made.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as studies have shown that four out of ten times that does not happen, why does the Postmaster General continue to indicate on the boxes that it will happen? It does not happen in four out of ten cases. It should be changed.


Mr. Blais:: I do not know what studies the hon. gentleman is referring to, but if he wants to communicate with me, I will provide him with studies which prove quite the contrary.



FINANCE


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In

view of the fact that in the next decade Canada will become a net importer of oil at higher and higher prices, which will have a serious effect on our foreign exchange situation, will the government reconsider its decision not to implement the promise made by the Prime Minister during the 1974 election campaign that the federal government would pay 100 per cent of the cost of Canadian-made vehicles for urban transit and other things to the extent of $275 million over five years?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been under discussion within the government some possible options with regard to urban policies in which not only the possibilities for urban transit but also the grade crossing fund, rail line relocation and other questions have been considered from the standpoint of priority of government expenditures. However, I cannot say at this point whether there will be any additional funds made available for urban transportation.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a number of provincial governments have already instituted programs to share the cost of extending their urban transit systems or to share the cost of meeting the deficit so that the price of fares will not go up, all of which programs help to discourage the increased use of private automobiles and the increased use of petroleum, of which there is a scarcity, will the government be announcing in the near future programs in which it will participate so that municipalities and provincial governments can be encouraged to move toward expanding their urban transit systems.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The real question is whether with the limited amount of funds available for federal expenditures of this kind the maximum impact can be attained by a new shared-cost program in the area of urban transportation or whether federal funds might more properly be directed to the kind of programs to which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands referred, such as the reinsulation program. Obviously, it would be desirable if there were unlimited funds available to attempt to do so but given the absence of that situation it is a question of determining priorities.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Could he bring us up to date on the state of negotiations between his department and the province of Manitoba with regard to transferring Deer Lodge military hospital to the province of Manitoba.
June 10, 1977


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there are no negotiations as such with regard to the transfer of Deer Lodge to the province. There have been some preliminary discussions between my department and provincial officials. The purpose of those discussions is more or less to determine if the province is interested and if things can be worked out to the satisfaction of all concerned. It would have to be agreed that a certain number of beds be made available to the veterans and the staff we have employed there would have to be to guaranteed employment. All these things have to be worked out.

[ Translation]



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont on a question of privilege.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) raised a question of privilege about an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of June 6 and which reported statements I supposedly made in Montreal on Saturday, June 4. First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for waiting for me until this morning to continue this debate. As my colleague from Peace River said, my responsibilities in the case of mechanics against Air Canada held me before the Superior Court of Quebec until this morning.
However, let me repeat the substance of my remarks, since I did not read a text which might have circulated and the contents of which I cannot therefore table here this morning. I might recall Mr. Speaker, that on that occasion I was taking part in a "Vigilance Day" organized by the Federation profes-sionnelle des journalistes du Quebec regarding the CRTC inquiry into the CBC and Bill C-43 on telecommunications. I had been invited along with some of my colleagues on this side of the House.
My statements had a double purpose: first, a legal analysis of some of the provisions in Bill C-43 with regard to Bills C-24 and C-25; second, a discussion on the political circumstances which led to the CRTC inquiry into the CBC. The object of Bill C-43 is to regulate the telecommunications system in this country. This is a legislation of capital importance since it deals with the very bases of our political society's structure.
Not so long ago, constitutional law was still restricted to the discussion of the three traditional powers, that is the legislative, the executive and the judiciary, with emphasis on their required independence in principle as a guarantee of popular sovereignty which itself finds its mandatory expression in the most important thing the British law gave us, the rule of law.
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin

We like to boast-

-wrote the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court last March-

-that we are living in a political regime where the rule of law is alpha and omega and where the political process does actually respect and bow under the rule of law.

It is by the rigorous application of this rule of law to specific decisions or bills that we can assess the duty of the political power to abide by the rule of the primacy of law and its necessary sanction by the courts. Justice Deschesne gave a proper definition when he stated that "our ancestors understood quite well that our political system requires the presence of a court of higher jurisdiction having over physical and moral persons as well as over the courts what was called at that time a power of control meant to ensure that everyone performs the duties required by law but also that everyone stays within the limits of the authority conferred upon him by law.
Should public institution violate the rule of law, transgress its prerogatives, go beyond its powers or be guilty of a patently illegal act, then the confidence of the public in those who are responsible for enacting and implementing the law is destroyed. I will not linger on the incident of L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec or on others which underline the malaise we feel when those who are responsible for implementing the law violate, deliberately or not, its letter and spirit.
Therefore, in a democratic society, we should be able to rely on clear statutes which are compulsory for everyone and on an independent magistrature, with the power to supervise and control the administration of the law, which recalls the existence of restrictions as far as individual prerogatives are concerned, in brief, which ensures compliance with the law.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not insist on the part of the press, and in particular of the electronic media, in this moving and flowing process, which is difficult to understand and which contributes to public opinion and to the balance which is very difficult to establish between both parts, namely to inform on the one side and to analyse, comment and dissect on the other side. In fact, nobody doubts anymore the fact that the press is a fourth power and that it is essential to the health of our political institutions. Very often it will play part of the role which is theoretically the responsibility of the opposition, when it is not in itself one of the basic mechanisms of control over public administration. All contemporary authors in administrative law recognize the importance of having an alert press in the control process of the administration. I shall mention only Mr. Rene Dussault and Mr. Gilles Pepin: who stressed adequately the role of the press as an extraparliamentary control instrument.
Now, contrary to those having the legislative, executive and judiciary powers who, in our system, are tied to one another,
6532

June 10, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
even though there exists among them a real independence, the power of the press has evolved progressively in an almost empiric fashion and today it has an outstanding role to play within the body politic. The power of the press has forced itself upon political institutions. To remain a genuine force in our democratic process, the press must obviously be subject to the rule of law and maintain a necessary independence.
Bill C-43 on Canadian telecommunications, because it is intended to regulate all the area of electronic media in Canada, affects the very nature of the relationships that ought to exist between the political entity and the press, the responsibilities they have towards one another and the institutions responsible for ensuring their respective independence. Therefore, we have to make sure that this bill provides the necessary guarantees so that one should not be subject to the other, that each may know the conditions of their respective endeavours and make sure that the rule of law guarantees strict compliance with their particular privileges.
Now, Bill C-43 contains provisions which, if they were to be passed in their present form, would in my opinion allow the political power to disregard totally or partially the legislation in the telecommunications area, without the political power having to prove before anybody, Parliament or the courts, the existence of certain conditions of fact or law which make compliance impossible and without any time limit restricting their duration. Those provisions are found specially in clauses 4 and 5 of Bill C-43 which stipulates that "the governor in council may, by order, subject to any terms and conditions specified in the order, exempt Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province and any agent thereof from the application of this act or any provisions thereof." Now, Mr. Speaker, that provision, stipulating an extraordinary exception to the effect that the governor in council need not require the authorization of the House or any court to justify his decision, was not incorporated in the Broadcasting Act passed in 1967. It strikes me as unconscionable and contrary to our rule of law tradition. When the law exists, it applies to all equally, and only for cause or proof can authorization be given to suspend its application for a time.
However, Bill C-43 in fact changes radically the nature of the CRTC. From an independent and quasi-judicial body that it has always been to date, the CRTC would become more or less an executory instrument partially subjected to the power of tutelage of the government; clause 11 of the bill would authorize the government to slough off the decisions of the CRTC, and oblige it to change them in all or in part; clause 10 would even require the CRTC to convey to the government all information obtained in the exercise of its functions. In short, the bill would in effect strip that body from part of the independence which was its strength and protected it from political interference.
One of the fundamental weaknesses of Bill C-43 lies in the fact that it does not recognize clearly, specifically, the right of the Canadian public to information. Need we be reminded that

there is an important difference between the right of expression as mentioned in clause 3(0 of the bill, and the right of the public to be informed, a right clearly and openly expressed which could be enunciated in the first clause, and be the very foundation of the bill. Mr. Speaker, the right of the public to information can be guaranteed in several ways. First of all, it could be legislated at the newspaper ownership level. Regulations could also apply setting admission criteria-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The feelings of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) on such an important subject are certainly interesting and most sensible but we are now dealing only with the question of privilege. Any remarks he has to make, not on a general sense but on the question of privilege, are quite welcome. We are now listening to the hon. member speak on the general subject of deficiencies or otherwise in some legislation which is the very subject of the debate.


Serge Joyal: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to be brief. I merely wanted to remind the House, which did not have the opportunity to hear me previously on the very subject of my intervention, in what context I did suggest that Bills C-43, C-24 and C-25, which had been the object of my remarks on that particular occasion, did in my opinion contain excessive provisions which escape the powers of surveillance and control of the courts, which are the traditional tenets of our constitutional law, and in which manner it seems to me necessary to point out to this House the importance of a continuous surveillance and control by democratic institutions or by institutions empowered to ensure the primacy of the law, in which manner, I repeat, this house should continuously concern itself with incorporating provisions to that effect in any legislation that comes before us.
I will conclude my remarks rather briefly, Mr. Speaker. As many others in the House who care about setting up in this country a philosophy based upon human rights and liberties which could be the essence of our national unity, I am concerned to see in so many examples and in so many basic aspects of our political system an increasing trend towards powers of exception and intervention to deal with essential aspects of our democratic life.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my contribution will be brief. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) presented the House with a learned dissertation on the apprehension which most individual members, regardless of party affiliation, sometimes feel. I suggest that possibly the majority of members of this House are concerned about the public's right to know what is said in parliament. Hon. members want to be certain that comments made in the House can be reported to the general public in an unfettered way, free of any suggestion of arbitrary government interference.
My point is this: there have been discussions on the question of privilege raised by my colleague from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) which show that hon. members are concerned about
June 10, 1977

this question. We in this House sometimes tend to look at events from day to day, we tend to consider how the news media reports our daily activities and how they report the current crises which arise from time to time in the House, and overlook basic questions concerning fundamental freedoms which we have come to accept in our country. One such freedom is the freedom of the general public to have absolutely unequivocal and unfettered access to reports concerning the proceedings of the parliament of Canada and the legislatures of Canada.
The words of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, he being a supporter of the government party and aware of the activities of government from his vantage point, underline how necessary it is for members of this House to support the motion moved. Let us allow the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to assess any possibility of abuse, or the possibility of the government arbitrarily restricting the reporting of the proceedings of this House and the availability of such reports to the general public.
Sir, I submit that since you have heard each of the representatives of the parties in this House speak in support of the motion, you should give the matter serious consideration- which I know you will do-accept the proposition that a prima facie case has been made and thereby allow us to investigate in the standing committee this serious and fundamental question. After the committee has considered the matter it can report back to the House, and the House can, if it wishes, approve the committee's report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I said earlier that I was awaiting the intervention of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal). I will give the matter further consideration and very likely give my decision on Tuesday at three o'clock.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Clermont.,

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Campbell.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Food Policy AGRICULTURE NATIONAL FOOD POLICY
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government and, in particular, my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) who will also be making a statement, I am pleased to table a dicussion paper outlining the principal elements of a national food strategy to reinforce the basic objectives of our existing food policy. I should stress that while the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and I are most directly involved in the formulation of any such strategy, other ministers, most especially those representing Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) and, of course. Finance (Mr. Macdonald), have contributed to this document.
Over the past months concern has been expressed in certain quarters about a national food policy. I have repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that such a policy does exist and has existed for years, but it is clear that until the objectives are emphasized publicly, and the strategy for attaining those goals defined, there will be many who will not be content. As Minister of Agriculture I am very much aware of the responsibility that must be taken by the government to ensure the viability of any policy which touches Canadians at all levels and in all regions.
Over the years the role of agriculture has broadened and its scope has increased. Today agriculture is intricately linked with food marketing in the larger agribusiness context involving the processing, packaging and distributing sectors. One in every four Canadians is now employed somewhere in the food production, processing and distribution chain or in the industries supplying machinery, fertilizer and other food industry inputs. Out of every consumer dollar spent on food, 62 cents goes to the food manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers. There are slightly more than 200,000 workers employed in the food processing sector today, making it the largest manufacturing industry in Canada.
Despite the decline in the number of fishermen and farmers who constitute the very foundation of the food industry, the industry continues to grow. Why? Because of the greatly increased productivity of those farmers and fishermen who remain. They have discovered that there is no room in today's economic climate for the inefficient producer. This high level of productivity has kept Canada in the enviable position of being one of the very few net exporters of food in the world today. In 1976, agricultural exports totalled $4 billion, and we had a $1 billion surplus which helped offset some of the adverse impact of the deficit in other areas-especially oil.
So food is big business. More than that, apart from the cash value it is an industry which forms an integral part of this country's economic, industrial and social life. The farmer on the land is the first link in a chain which brings the food from the farm to the table in a form that is nutritious, wholesome and affordable. Today's food industry has evolved to meet the increasingly sophisticated demands of today's consumer.
80018-12'A

June 10, 1977
Food Policy
Acceptable food today implies a far more sophisticated set of quality standards than were required, 20, 10 or even 5 years ago. To meet those demands, our own food standards have changed. Food inspection, for example, remains a vital topic of concern and it may be necessary to reinforce standards that are required with today's advanced food technology and changing consumer patterns.
Consumers today are also concerned with rising food costs. They are concerned with getting value for their money. They are concerned about food freshness, availability and quality. They are concerned when they see more of their dollars going into the grocery basket. I would ask hon. members and all Canadians to pay close attention as I outline for this House the basic objectives of a food policy which has been in place and working well for some time past.
The first and prime concern of this policy, a concern which has been and continues to be of great importance to me and my department, is that consumers are assured at all times of high quality food at reasonable prices. The second objective is to assure efficient farmers a decent living. The third aim is to provide aid to countries where people cannot adequately feed themselves; and the fourth is to produce products in which we have a competitive advantage for commercial export. In all instances we must ensure that the many middlemen between the producer and the consumer are operating fairly and effectively in a competitive atmosphere. We have met, are meeting and will continue to meet those objectives. But in the changing international and domestic economic climate our strategy to meet those objectives has to change to meet the challenge of the times.
First of all, it must be clear that any strategy to implement this policy must go beyond agriculture and fisheries programs to include the processing, distribution and retailing sectors; and, very importantly, the strategy must cover consumer concerns. To achieve the goals of our food policy we must continually re-examine, change and update our food strategy. If necessary, new programs must be developed to cover food trade, processing, distributing, retailing, and so on.
For those agricultural products that are traded internationally and continue to be subject to external influences so far as domestic supplies and prices are concerned, international stabilization schemes might not only be discussed, but implemented. As an example, I would cite the Canadian dairy industry which depends upon a strong world market for dairy products if it is to function with less federal economic support.
As to domestic products, to be able to provide quality food at reasonable costs farmers must have assurance that their incomes will not fluctuate from season to season. Some programs already provide the assurances they seek. The Agricultural Stabilization Act, the Western Grain Stabilization Act, the amended Farm Credit Corporation Act already give the farmer some of the economic backing he needs. To deal with income instability, this government is ready to maintain and develop policies which will improve orderly marketing while
(Mr. Whelan.)
protecting domestic markets from short-term inflated world market prices. After review, programs will be introduced to extend the protection already given to efficient producers to guard them from production uncertainties, specifically in the areas of crop and disease insurance and resource restoration.
I am aware that any approach to income stabilization must include trade policy and safeguards. Our trade policy will be assessed so that consumers and producers can benefit from a fast, effective system of legislation whenever specific international market disruptions occur that could temporarily distort our own domestic markets. Different protection may be required for some food commodities that are of considerable economic importance in certain regions. For instance, some products of the horticultural industry have excellent prospects of becoming competitive in the longer term, but will require assistance to help them reach the point where they can stand alone.
There is no doubt that better access to foreign markets where our agricultural products enjoy a competitive advantage will have to be negotiated. At the same time, international multilateral or bilateral commodity agreements should be considered where they are in the interest of the Canadian economy. But no matter how good our efforts to improve existing conditions are, the determination to achieve the aims of the food policy will result in less than total success unless we also review and revise our marketing systems. Market information for producers and consumers alike must be readily available and up to date. The role played by marketing boards in achieving this end is certainly of importance. As well as reviewing the total marketing structure, the processing, distributing and retailing sectors will be reviewed according to certain criteria. I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will be highlighting some of them.
We are still a young country, and it is my intention that agriculture will continue to develop so that more and more we can play a greater part in feeding the hungry of the world. We have a challenge to meet. The document which 1 am tabling in this House today is a step toward meeting that challenge. This paper examines in detail the many elements involved in creating a practical food strategy to serve, not only the fisherman and the farmer but all those involved in the food chain up to and including, the Canadian consumer.
This strategy stresses the need for consultation with interested groups. Therefore, this fall or early winter, I, in conjunction with my colleagues from the other departments involved, will be calling a working seminar to consider the implications and direction of the effective strategy described in the document being tabled today. Representatives from non-governmental organizations will be invited to attend so that we can establish a productive and continuing dialogue among all sectors concerned with food.
Through continuing communication I am convinced that the elements of the food policy which have to date served Canadians so well can be further strengthened, not only to the benefit of this country but the world.
June 10, 1977


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is some disposition to allow two statements to be made consecutively, and then have questions.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. This is the second time in the last few days where we have had the Alphonse-Gaston or Mutt and Jeff routine, or whatever you want to call it, with respect to statements. This is not the time to deal with the matter directly, but it does have some effect on the matter of questioning. I realize there are problems between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott). Perhaps one cannot speak for the government. Maybe no one over there can speak for the government. I hope this is a practice that will not be followed further.
1 note that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs intends to speak. We intend to reply to both statements. When the government is making a statement with respect to a matter of policy, that statement should be made by one minister. If there is some disagreement in the government between two ministries as to what the policy is, perhaps the government House leader could make the statement rather than have two ministers bouncing around.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: We could have a whole field day if we allowed the practice to continue.


Mr. Clark:: Wait until Goyer gets back.


Walter David Baker: I can foresee a bad parliamentary practice. I rise now to put in a caveat in the friendliest way I know, given the difficulties the government has reconciling these two points of view. It has now been augmented and stirred up with the entry of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) who is against everything. That hon. member is not even on speaking terms with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and probably a few others. I know this causes difficulty, but we ought to observe the rules of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 understand the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) is prepared to make a statement on motions. The practice is for a minister to make a statement. If the House wants to accommodate the making of both statements and follow with questions on both statements, it can do so. However, if the House does not want to do that it is not compelled to do so. It is a question of whether it is convenient for those members who want to receive the information before putting questions. I presume it is a departure from our regular practice and therefore requires consent.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of what the practice was going to be in this case. I spoke to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and they very kindly delivered two state-
Food Policy
ments. What I am doing now is filing a caveat for the future so that this kind of practice will not continue. Somehow or other ministers ought to get together and make one statement. This is important for the rules of the House of Commons. We are having two statements today: tomorrow we could have three. Frankly, I think this is a bad practice. However, because of the discussions I am prepared to let the matter go today. In any event, I want to enter that caveat as strongly as I can.


Mr. McGrath:: Since this represents a departure from normal practice, Mr. Speaker, I should like some guidance from the Chair. Apparently we are to hear statements from two ministers. If that is the intention, with your consent, since you are the custodian of the practices of the House, I should like to know whether it is Your Honour's intention to allow members who wish to ask questions afterwards, in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Order, extra time in which to address questions to both ministers, as compared with the time usually allocated when one minister makes a statement.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank hon. members for their indulgence. I am pleased to have the opportunity of making a statement at this stage. As hon. members are aware, the food strategy document has been published over the names of myself and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), so I am pleased to have the opportunity to add a few words to what he has said and to give my full support to the document which he has just tabled. Before commenting on the particular interest of consumers I should like to make some general observations about food policy.
I have long been an advocate of a national food policy for Canada and believe we need a strategy for food just as we need national policies for defence, energy or transportation. Our food policy must apply to all parts or components of the food system: to consumers as well as to farmers, to processors and to retailers, to the suppliers of farm inputs and to the exporters and importers of food products and agricultural commodities. Nor should we overlook the role of the fishing industry in our food system.
From the point of view of consumers, a food strategy should assure them of the right to reasonable prices and nutritious food. At the same time, the strategy must be designed to maintain a strong and competitive agricultural industry in Canada and to promote greater efficiency and productivity in food processing, distribution and retailing. But we should not forget that the interests of these various components of the food system do not always coincide. A food strategy is, thus, something of a compromise based on good relations and close co-operation between the various departments and ministers, each with a role in food policy operation and development. I am very pleased that we have been able to develop a food strategy for Canada. It is a clear demonstration of the importance the government attaches to the concerns urban consumers have expressed about the supply, price and quality of their food. This document we have put before the House today

June 10, 1977
Food Policy
provides us with a basic guide for development of policies and programs for the food sector.
Turning, now, to the strategy itself and to those aspects of special interest to consumers, I would begin by reminding the House that while there is concern about the importance of good nutrition to the health of Canadians about new foods and additives, and about food quality generally, in recent years the main concern of consumers has been with the level of food prices. In the period 1972-75, food prices increased 50 per cent, due largely to events in international grain markets and general inflationary trends. The action taken by the government to protect consumers against these price increases included subsidies on some important foodstuffs including milk and bread. Food prices decreased between mid-1975 and the end of 1976, but there has been a resurgence of food price increases in recent months. The food component of the consumer price index is now over 70 per cent higher than in 1971. It is important, therefore, that the government's food policies and programs assure all Canadians of an adequate supply of safe and nutritious food at prices which are reasonable to consumers and producers alike. We believe our guidelines will enable us to give that assurance.
The government's food strategy represents a set of basic principles to guide the development of policies and programs for the food sector. For consumers, the primary aim is to reassure them that not only is the food marketing system fair and efficient, but also that their interests are taken into account along with those of producers, processors and others, in any government involvement in the food industry.
I would now like to highlight those principles that are of particular interest to consumers. While Canadian consumers need not worry unduly about the sufficiency of food resources or supplies for the foreseeable future, the government intends to work to conserve and restore, where necessary, scarce resources which are essential to food production. The government will use and develop its food policies to encourage the food system to provide food and food services in the simplest, most economical and most direct manner and in the most nutritious and useful form to meet the needs and demands of consumers.
Let me highlight a few new plans of direct value to consumers. We will provide regular price information to consumers on basic foods. We will strengthen the food inspection services. We will work with the provinces to develop national food inspection guidelines. We will strive to improve the productivity, efficiency and competitiveness of food production, processing, distribution and retailing. We will ensure that all appointments to boards, agencies and other institutions utilize widely experienced persons and that the views of producers, processors and consumers are adequately represented.
Mir. Fraser: Aren't you doing that now?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: We will improve the structure, procedures and public knowledge of these bodies. We will give increased emphasis to food safety and good nutrition both federally and in collaboration with provincial governments.
(Mr. Abbott.]
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the strategy represents only a beginning. Much work remains to be done to flesh out the principles we have enunciated in our food strategy into specific policies and programs. This we will be doing over the next months and years. I hope that initially the strategy will stimulate public debate and provide a basis for consultation between the federal government, the provinces and the private sector. For my own part, I would invite consumers and their representatives to communicate to me their views on the strategy, the principles it contains and the next steps to be taken.


Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to see we now have the "Bobsy Twins" in the cabinet. I was reminded by statements this morning of the ancient Chinese proverb, "Talk does not cook rice". It is ironic that these statements by the two ministers with direct responsibility for food policy should have been made on the same morning that Statistics Canada reports a further major increase in food costs in the country. That is one side of the problem. The other is that the continuing escalation in food prices is occurring during a period in which net farm incomes in Canada are actually declining. As is so often the case with this government, here, too, it has managed to give us the worst of both worlds.
In this unhappy situation one would have hoped the statement might have provided us with some evidence that the government has a clear sense of direction with regard to the all-important question of a national food policy. But, again, this is not a government which has a sense of direction on anything. Thus, predictably, we are given yet another discussion paper full of the kinds of generalities which have marked the publications put out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on the basic course of economic policy.
It is worth recording that when the anti-inflation program was announced some 20 months ago, the government in its white paper at that time drew attention to food policy as one of the major sectors to be dealt with during the "breathing space" provided by wage and price controls. Yet it has taken us until today, more than 20 months later, to get even a discussion paper out of the government. The reason for this delay is, of course, known to all of us. It is simply that the two ministers involved, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott), are in total disagreement over the basic issues at stake here.
Notably absent from the front page of this document are the names of the other ministers who one would expect to be concerned with these issues. Where is there mention of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc)? Where is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien)? Where is the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand)? Where is the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang)? As for the ministers from whom we have just heard, I must congratulate them for at least getting their two names together on the same title page. I only hope there is
June 10, 1977

some evidence that they had got their heads together, too. In fact, they cannot even agree on the basic question of whether we even have a food policy. Today we had a statement by the Minister of Agriculture saying we have one, and another statement by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs saying we need one. So much for cabinet solidarity!
Given the fact that these two gentlemen cannot agree on a question as basic as that, it ns hardly surprising that the document seeks to come down on both sides of virtually every question involved here. The government is committed to the free market system, but it also favours supply management. It wants freer world trade in agricultural products, but it is determined to strengthen mechanisms to protect our domestic markets. So it goes on. Not only do we have a collection of generalities in this document, but even at the level of generalities the government is simply adding confusion and contradiction to questions which so urgently demand some clarity and direction.
We on this side of the House have never suggested that there is a simple cure-all for a national food policy. The issues here are both difficult and complex. The truth of the matter is that it is going to require a long-term, comprehensive approach in a climate of co-operation, not confrontation. There must be consultation if we are to bring some sense of order and stability to this whole area. Indeed, issues which are outside the direct purview of either of these two ministers and which, as I said before, are hardly touched on in this paper- transportation, land use, income support and subsidies-all have to be considered if we are to have a co-ordinated and sensible approach toward food production and consumption in this country.
To be perfectly honest, Mr. Speaker, I felt very sad when I read this paper. I really thought there was going to be a ringing declaration of how we had to expand the food industry. In 35 years we will be facing a doubled population in this world-seven billion persons in the space of a lifetime. During that time we must construct all of the infrastructure to feed those people. Here we are not talking about that. There is an old saying in my family: Lift the level of the lake and all canoes float higher. Somehow that quality is not in this document.
This document does not even talk about research and development. We have never utilized this approach. Incredible things have been happening in food technology which were utilized in the space program. Where does this document say that we are going to use the science and technology that is available? This is a rather incomplete and sad document. Some of the matters touched on in this paper, even in a general way, are necessary elements in any workable policy. No one will dispute the need for more and better consumer information about food, or the need for better public education on costs and nutrition. Now would anyone dispute the fact, given the shared jurisdictions in so many areas involved here, effective federal-provincial consultation and co-ordination is essen-
Food Policy
tial. We all can agree on those general goals. We will have to wait and see how the government plans to implement them in specific terms.
The Minister of Agriculture talks about "working seminars", as he calls them, some time in the late fall or early winter-bless his heart-as if that were the next stage in the process. I say to him that there simply is not enough in this document to warrant waiting until late fall to get things moving. We have all seen just how heavy a price the country has had to pay for the government's indecision and procrastination on major economic issues. I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture, along with his brothers and sisters in the cabinet, that rather than dilly-dallying for another six months he get down to business immediately. Why does the minister not refer this paper to a parliamentary committee and give it an immediate mandate to receive submissions from all groups with a direct interest in these questions? This paper is simply an agenda for discussion. Why do we not have serious debate? Who knows, Mr. Speaker, perhaps a parliamentary committee could make recommendations that even the two ministers could agree on. One is reminded that sometimes no matter how you slice certain kinds of pork, it is still baloney.
If these statements show one thing about the minister's knowledge of the food system, it is that he certainly knows, how to package. One wonders whether this is the first document in the election campaign literature. However, as anyone in the food industry can tell you, Mr. Speaker, packaging is nothing without delivery. This government must deliver on a food policy.


Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the most important thing about this document is its timing. It is brought before the House the day after massive publicity regarding the Ontario election. With all the papers full of the election coverage, the minister announces a new food strategy. I sympathize with the government. If I were a member of the government I would not dare release this information on a slow moving news day; it just would not be worth while.
We do not have anything new in this package, Mr. Speaker. It is simply a further study of some of our food problems, a cataloguing of some of the programs that are in place. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) argues that we already have a food policy. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) says that we do not have one. We still have disagreement between the two ministers in their statements to the House. As I say, there is nothing new in them. They are a typical piece of Liberal rhetoric for whenever the election campaign comes. They summarize existing policies.
About a year ago we had the DM Ten report which talked about a number of aspects of food policy. I think it is relevant to ask what the government has been doing for the last year, because the conclusion reached by this food strategy paper tabled today is that we need further assessment of food production in this country before we come up with a definitive program.

June 10, 1977
Food Policy
The statements are also full of all kinds of beautiful platitudes about food production in this country. As has already been said, some of these platitudes are conflicting. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in his statement, speaks about a market system. The Minister of Agriculture refers to marketing boards and orderly marketing. There seem to be conflicting objectives. Perhaps the statement made by Walter Stewart in his book is quite relevant; he said "divide and con" is one of the objectives of this government's food policy. They are dividing the consumer and the farmer, and at the same time trying to con both of them.
This food policy statement, if it is such a thing, is based on the same old market system we have had for years. It does not analyse any of the problems of that old market system. It does not offer any changes at all. The minister may say that changes are made, but let me analyse some of the changes that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is suggesting today. He says, first of all that the government will provide regular price information to consumers on basic foods. What does he mean by that? If he were going to provide some price information on a store by store basis, then that might be helpful to consumers; but I am sure he will not do that.
Secondly, he says the government will strengthen food inspection services. What does he mean by that? Is he going to tackle some of the junk and artificial foods sold in this country? He does not say. Thirdly, he says the government will work with the provinces to develop national food inspection guidelines. For goodness sake, Mr. Speaker, I hope he does work with the provinces: What is so new about that? Fourthly, he says the government will strive to improve the productivity, efficiency and competitiveness of food production, processing, distribution and retailing. The government has said that, probably for the last 110 years. Fifthly, he says the government will ensure that all appointments to boards, agencies and other institutions will utilize widely experienced persons, and that there will be a balanced view. I hope the government is already doing this. I hope that not all the people appointed to these boards are defeated Liberal candidates, and that some of them do have balanced views.
The final point the minister makes is that the government is going to give increased emphasis to food safety and good nutrition, both federally and in collaboration with provincial governments. Again, Mr. Speaker, that is a nice platitude; but what is the government going to do about it? All governments in this country last year spent about $1 million on nutrition information and education, while the private food chains spent about $90 million on advertising their products. What is the government going to do in this area? Again, it does not say.
In the statement of the Minister of Agriculture these same types of platitudes are made, but he does not elaborate on any specific policy. For example, he says that we need an international stabilization scheme. The government has always said this. But what new action is being taken to stabilize food prices around the world? He is saying that the problems of the farmers can all be looked after by the Agricultural Stabilization Act and the Western Grain Stabilization Act, these great

and wonderful programs which are in place and which will be maintained. He does not talk about improving them, despite the fact that gross farm incomes fell by 31 per cent in January, 1977, compared with January, 1976. Nothing new is being proposed in this regard. We know those programs are not fair or equitable and that they will not improve the incomes of farmers in this country.
The minister also talks about our trade policy and says it must be reassessed. How is he going to reassess this policy? What new things is he going to propose? What is he going to do about tariffs? The average tariff on farm goods in this country is less than one-half of 1 per cent, and the average manufacturing tariff is something like 20 per cent or more. What is he going to do in this area? Everything he is talking about in this food policy is really a bunch of platitudes and generalizations. It is a "nothing" statement, with nothing new in it.
We have had about one year of speculation concerning a food strategy for our country. It was supposed to co-ordinate things in Canada and do something about the crisis which 1 think is imminent. We have had two ministers scrapping and fighting with each other for the last year. They have let us see some of the documents and the conflicting views. Now they have come up with a statement which is a compromise and a mish-mash of ideas. It is a document which is absolutely, totally irrelevant. It is a typical Liberal gimmick as we go into an election campaign.
In the meantime, there are a lot of things which should be done. As the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) mentioned, there is a problem of food availability in the world. How are we going to feed those people? We cannot feed them now. How are we going to feed them when I am on the old age pension? The ministers should turn their attention to that problem. They do not do anything about land use. The minister's own department talks about 250 acres a day of good farmland going out of production in Canada. There is no leadership by the federal government to preserve good land for the production of food. They do nothing about the availability of food in this country, despite the fact we are already a net importer of food in Canada, if you take away grains and oilseeds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said that we will have no problem with the supply of food in the foreseeable future. We had a deficit last year of $1.5 billion. If you look at the government's own statement on food strategy for the same year, you will see they indicate the deficit is $1.9 billion. They cannot even get their figures straight. That is the situation we face in this country.
There is also the question of energy. The government did not talk about the impact of energy prices or the shortage of energy. That is important-its impact on the food strategy. The food sector uses about 15 per cent of the energy in this
June 10, 1977

country. What is going to happen to prices when the cost of energy climbs? What are they doing about conservation in the food area? What are they doing about alternative sources of energy for producing food?
Already we are aware of what increased fuel costs have done to some of the fruit and vegetable growers in Ontario. That is the minister's own province, and still he has not looked at it. What are they doing about the environmental effects? We have soil erosion in this country. The quality of our soil is going down because of increased use of pesticides in Canada. That raises some serious questions about the quality of food in the future and the quality of our soil. What are they doing about that? I have already mentioned tariffs. What are they doing about tariffs? Canada is becoming less and less efficient in the production of food.
Aside from the availability of food, the government should have dealt with the quality of food. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said that consumers are becoming more and more conscious and concerned about the quality of food in this country. He did not say what they were going to do about it. Some 1,800 different chemicals are put into our food on a routine basis, and there are hundreds of others which are used. There is more and more linkage of some of our diseases today to the type of foods we are eating in this country. Nothing is being done about this. There are no new policies in terms of the quality of food in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, before you rise to cut me off, there are no changes in the manner in which we produce food in this country. The government is not going to change the old market system which has created a lot of our problems. They are not going to bring more equity into the food system for farmers, on one side, and for the consumers on the other side, despite the fact that we have had a drop in farm income and an up and down bouncing of prices over the years.
There are many problems to be faced if we want to have a good food policy in this country. The farmers of my area are concerned about the so-called government ideas regarding bigness, efficiency and competition. Farmers believe the most efficient way of producing food is through the family farm unit. What new ideas and policies do we have to protect that method of producing food? The government sits idly by while there are certain forces in the west promoting huge inland terminals to replace the country elevators. Huge companies are coming in to to squeeze out the wheat pools. What new policy is there to protect the family farms across this country? Those are the questions which have to be raised. It has been a sham and a public relations job by the government as they enter an election campaign.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs concerning food safety and good nutrition. Some time ago I asked the minister, due to the fact that offshore meat was of an inferior quality, what the position of the government was as to the labelling of that meat. At that time he said he was going to have a meeting with the Minister of Agriculture. Can he tell
Food Policy
us whether he has had that meeting with the minister, and what the results of it were?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I did not meet directly with the minister, but I asked officials of my department to consult with his officials. The question as to the quality of meat from offshore would be principally that of the Minister of Agriculture.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the reaction of the Minister of Agriculture and his position in regard to the labelling of offshore meat, so that the Canadian consumer will be aware whether it is inferior quality meat which is being purchased or whether it is domestic quality meat.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is concerned about labelling, that it is going to be labelled as inferior quality, etc., we could not do that because the protein content is practically the same as it is in Canada. The nourishment and nutrition in that meat is practically the same as you would get from a similar kind of meat in Canada. It meets those standards, and there is nothing one can do to change that. If frozen meat is brought in and put on a meat counter, it changes colour and it is easily recognized as compared to a fresh Canadian meat product.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question. What are the possibilities of having it labelled as offshore meat?


Eugene Whelan: It would be an additional cost to the consumer, mainly. I do not know what advantage it would be to them.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Oh, come on.


Eugene Whelan: It is being considered. We are looking at many different foods being brought into Canada. We have had requests from many consumers in Canada similar to the request the hon. member has made. They want to have a label which indicates whether it is a product of Canada or whether it is an imported product. There is no denying that. There is a general trend in the consuming public to want that form of labelling on any product they buy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is one o'clock, and there are several members who have indicated a desire to ask questions. There has been a double statement. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) made a point earlier with respect to the expectation of quite a number of questions with respect to these statements. It is always possible to continue in an attempt to finish such questions. If there were a suggestion to continue, I could take it under consideration. I must have some indication of consensus as to the House rising now in the ordinary way and returning at two o'clock in order to complete this matter, together with the remaining routine proceedings. Is there unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 10, 1977
Food Policy


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At one o'clock hon. members were questioning the ministers upon the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott). The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has the floor.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs if, in the pursuit of a food strategy and the concomitant investigation into the food industry in Canada, he can tell the House, as the minister responsible for the protection of consumer interests in the government, whether he favours the supply-management concept as exemplified by the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, and if he can tell the House whether he has satisfied himself, bearing in mind the fact that his department has made a study of this, that the supply-management concept is in the best interests of the consumer.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the present supply-management scheme is operating in eggs, turkeys and milk, f think they are operating with varying degrees of success. As the hon. member knows, we have examined to some extent the competitive aspects of marketing as well as other sectors of the food economy, and I would want to correct the impression which was created by news reports that this strategy implies that we will launch an over-all investigation into the food industry. That is not the case. But we are going to take, consistent with this strategy, a very close look at the whole area of retailing, processing, manufacturing and marketing. 1 think that is in the best interests of Canadian consumers. The hon. member asks about my general enthusiasm for supply-marketing as it might be extended to other areas. I would say that I think there are preferable methods of marketing.


James Aloysius McGrath: In October, 1975, the Food Prices Review Board addressed itself to the question of broiler chicken prices and made specific recommendations, one of which came out against the inclusion of broiler chickens under the Farm Producers Marketing Board and, among other recommendations, they recommended that the federal government should take more vigorous action to combat and eliminate the constraints of interprovincial and international trade in the broiler industry which are contrary to the BNA Act. I would like to ask the minister if he, as the minister responsible for the protection of consumer interests, has looked into the question of interprovincial and international trade constraints by agreement which are clearly contrary to the BNA Act and which in

most instances are contrary to the best interests of the consumer.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I confess that I have not taken the opportunity to analyse closely this aspect of the marketing of poultry products in Canada. As the hon. member is aware, perhaps, cabinet is currently considering the whole question of existing poultry marketing boards, so I am somewhat limited in my capacity to respond to this question.


James Aloysius McGrath: The last time the government seriously addressed itself to this question was in 1972 when it established the special committee on trends in food prices. That committee made a number of recommendations. The last recommendation, which was made in 1973, was the following:
That the federal government give consideration to the advisability of establishing a comprehensive and realistic long-term food policy for Canada, coordinated through the Department of Agriculture and that the government give consideration to having this matter referred to appropriate standing committees.
Can the minister tell the House why the government did not act on that recommendation of the committee?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I assume the hon. member means the recommendation to refer this food strategy policy that they recommended being developed to a particular committee or to other committees.


James Aloysius McGrath: No.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Perhaps I did not grasp the hon. member's question. This is the first step in producing a food strategy. It is not necessarily evident from this that we will not be referring it or parts of it on occasion to standing committees, consistent with that recommendation.


Mr. Murta:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on that point. I will direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. The whole question of a food policy is too broad for a single parliamentary committee. Is the government giving any consideration either before the House adjourns or certainly in the fall to setting up a committee which could take possibly a few months to look into the whole aspect of a food policy for Canada and which would report back to the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, or other ministers involved?
This committee could touch on the whole question of food policy. The matter is probably too complex to allow one specific department to be involved. There are too many people and groups of people who want to have some input into the question of a food policy, and to my way of thinking a parliamentary committee struck by the House of Commons would be the most realistic way of doing it. Has the government given consideration to this and can we look for that type of committee as a result of the recommendation?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this has been discussed and I tend to favour some kind of committee. The hon. member for
June 10, 1977

St. John's East referred to a committee recommendation of 1973. I was a member of the former joint committee of the House of Commons and the other place at that time. There has been much talk of a food policy and a food strategy. As I said earlier, there will probably be much more talk; but as far as I am concerned, if a committee can be informative and if it can make information available to the people of Canada with regard to our food policy and with regard to what kind of strategy we should have to improve that food policy, that might be a good thing.
Mention was made here earlier about the things we are doing in scientific research. 1 think we are too quiet about that, because people from many other parts of the world and people from much larger nations than ours come here to see what our agricultural scientists and research people are doing. We are the envy of the world because we live in the northern hemisphere and are as productive as we are. I tend to lean toward the hon. member's suggestion, but how quickly we can get on with it is another matter. The hon. member is aware of the committees we have and the backlog of work they have. However, we will certainly be discussing this matter further.


Jack Burnett Murta: I am glad to hear the minister say that. 1 concur with him, and I think the idea most of us here would have for a committee would be to use knowledgeable people from the various sectors of the food industry. We should use producers, processors and consumers. We should strike a special committee. In that way the whole question could be put before the public and discussion could be generated.
It has been adequately expressed that it was a very watered down and a somewhat limp statement made this morning by the two ministers involved. It really was a statement of the obvious, except that the Minister of Agriculture mentioned that a working committee would be struck this fall. As I understand it, this committee will consist of intergovernmental people. What prompted this kind of statement in the first place? It was really a statement of the obvious. Certainly, those of us who have been involved with agriculture and food policy want to know what the government is doing and what the various political parties are doing. Much time has been consumed, and the various roles of the various segments of our food industry have not been clarified. Did consumers ask for this statement? Did producers ask for it? Did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs want this kind of statement? What was the reason for it?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a result of a series of occurrences. There have been requests from various groups in Canada. It is the result of political commitments of the government of Canada. The government committed itself to putting this kind of program together. The hon. member says he wants an interparliamentary committee of the Senate and the House. Perhaps the hon. member did not say the Senate: perhaps I am putting words in his mouth. However, that would probably be a satisfactory committee as far as I am concerned and bearing in mind my philosophy on the other place. A paper was referred to this morning by two hon. members who
Food Policy
spoke before we adjourned at one o'clock. When we speak of a paper in terms of its being a political document, I do not think the hon. member would suggest that we should use any such thing as a political document unless we are afraid of its substance.


Mr. Fraser:: There was not much substance.


Eugene Whelan: When one studies the facts which have been put together in the document and the recommendations which are made in it, one can see that this is the first time such a document has been put together. It was put together in co-operation with the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Finance and all the other departments directly involved in this program. The program involves food production, processing, distribution, transportation, and so forth. The food industry is the largest industry we have, and many people have to be involved in it. So the statement came about as a result of requests from many different sources.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I do not know whether I am putting words into his mouth, but I think he alluded to a preference for other methods of marketing besides supply-management. I would like to ask the minister whether the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has a group of public servants assessing, from the department's point of view, methods of marketing other than the supply management concept which, of course, is based on supply and demand. Is anybody looking at other methods of marketing which may be applicable to the Canadian agricultural situation?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: As I understand the definition of supply-management, in contrast to the hon. member's point, the government attempts, through a board, to judge what the supply and the demand will be and to allocate quotas for supply, and so forth. This is an innovative technique which, if it were based on any further application, would be less preferred than other methods. This does not mean, contrary to the popular view, that I am opposed to the general concept of marketing boards, and I have said that on many occasions.
I have what is known in the department as a food policy group composed of some very able people who advise me on specific food matters. They do not spend their time studying alternative methods of supply-management, however, because we honestly believe that for the majority of commodities in Canada we already have a marketing system which has proved very effective. We also have emergency procedures for border protection of imported products which may come in at distress or dump prices, and we have stabilization plans for producers to protect them from market fluctuations. It is not a matter of dreaming up some revolutionary, new scheme for marketing. There is an existing apparatus that has proved very effective, and I am somewhat reluctant to move into supply-management for a greater number of products than it already applies to.

June 10, 1977
Food Policy


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for both ministers, but I will start with a good Conservative. Would the minister be willing to have his food policy advisory group appear before the standing committee on agriculture so that the committee could have some input?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I am sorry; would the hon. member repeat his question, please?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Would the minister be in favour of letting the food advisory group appear before the committee so that they can be questioned? This might be valuable to the committee.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: This is a new idea, Mr. Speaker. Certainly 1 do not regard myself as a good Conservative; in fact, I have rarely met a good Conservative. I do not think it would be reasonable to ask policy advisers to appear before the committee. They really do not have any responsibility as civil servants apart from advising the department.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my next question concerns the suggestion in the policy statement about investigation into the processing, retailing and distribution industries. What is meant by an investigation? The competition bureau already has some power, so is the minister going to make changes?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: What we stated is that the government undertakes to concentrate on the competitiveness of food processing, distribution and retailing by monitoring the performance of the sector, including a variety of other definitions. In no case does the paper say it is going to do more than direct the bureau of competition, also falling under my responsibility, in an appropriate manner to study this sector. This is not, as was stated on radio, an investigation or any sort of witch-hunt. We are simply going to look across the board at the competition features of that economy, or lack thereof, and direct the competition bureau to keep a vigilant eye and carry out inquiries as it intends to do in a variety of economic areas in various parts of the country.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I will switch now to the more progressive minister. There was a gap in the policy, and I should like to ask about this area, that is, self-sufficiency in food production. According to the stance of the government in the paper tabled this morning, if we take away grains and oilseeds we had a deficit of $1.9 billion last year. I think that is important in terms of the balance of payments and jobs. What plans does the government have to produce more food and become selfsufficient? The deficit will probably increase because the price of grain is falling. It will probably be over $2 billion next year.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, one thing I want to make clear is that everybody on this side of the House is very forward-thinking. I would not be found guilty of using that word the Conservative party has used so often and that has proved so false-"progressive." We have done all kinds of studies. We know that we import more food than we need in order to have a proper diet in Canada. The minister from Prince Edward Island is not here, and I do not see any other members from that province in the House, although there are some from New

Brunswick. For their benefit, I want to say that one mediumsized potato, without gravy or any other garnish, will provide all the vitamin C one person needs in a day-and it is not fattening. We import too much of that sort of thing into Canada.


John Allen Fraser: The "one spud a day" boys march again.


Eugene Whelan: I did not hear what the hon. member said. If it was as great as his contribution to the Conservative leadership campaign, maybe it does not matter. We are exploring trade with developing countries which produce things we cannot produce here. The hon. member from western Canada stated that if it were not for cereal grains we would not have the balance of trade that we enjoy in food. I would point out, however, that without the other farmers we would have to import all our food and would be paying high prices for it.
I think his suggestion is ridiculous. He spoke about vegetable oilseeds, etc. But, Mr. Speaker, we are in a very fortunate position. Our agricultural industry is very productive. I apologize for what I said about the hon. member being ridiculous, if he was referring to the great productive capacity of farmers in western Canada. Even Ontario is rapidly becoming as great a grain producer as Manitoba. Production has gone from 30 million bushels of corn to 160 million or 180 million bushels in Ontario alone. There is no reason why we cannot be self-sufficient in oil-bearing seeds and even export more than we do at present. These are some of the things that our scientists and researchers are constantly working on.
The hon. member put a question regarding supply-management to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I do not know why he did not ask me, because I would like to comment on that. I do not think we need any more supply-management in agriculture than in any other industry-the taxi business in Ottawa, for instance.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A last question, Mr. Speaker. I asked the minister what policy he had to produce more food in Canada. He talked about grain, corn and potatoes, but did not answer the question. The paper he tabled today shows that if grains and oil seeds were omitted, the deficit would be $1.9 billion. Is it the policy of the government to produce more food in this country, or is it not? That is very important, not only for farmers but in order to create jobs in the processing industry, the balance of trade, and so on.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. When the hon. member talks about producing more food, I hope he is not suggesting that we produce it, just pile it up then hope somebody will buy it. That would be acting like Santa Claus. If we just use stabilization, then efficient producers will take advantage of the program and we will end up with piles of food that have to be distributed, or dumped. Is that what the hon. member means by more food production? I know that my farmers-our farmers, I should say, or my farmers, because I am the Minister of Agriculture, or at least part of the Minister of Agriculture-
June 10, 1977


An hon. Member:: Don't forget Otto.


Eugene Whelan: If they were given the proper incentive for nearly any of those things that our climatic conditions will allow us to grow, productivity could be increased by 50 per cent in five years. But we must make sure they get a proper return. That is what we poinf out in the strategy paper. It is wasteful and uneconomic to let the producer think that the food will be thrown on the world market in distress form. This is what happened with skim milk powder. The OPEC countries, Japan and everybody else got tremendous bargains, but it cost our producers money because of the biological entity we were dealing with called the cow.
You learn from experience. You can store grain for years so long as you store it in good condition and keep it dry. But you cannot store all commodities. It sounds grand and charitable to say "Store the food you produce." But, Mr. Speaker, some of it you cannot store, some of it you cannot sell, and some you can't even give away. I say, be realistic instead of making such wild, far-out suggestions.


Mr. Elzinga:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture requested a question on supply-management. Is the Minister of Agriculture's concept of supply-management the same as that just enunciated by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we do not differ very much on that, but I am sure even identical twins differ somewhat. We have been called identical twins, but there is nothing identical about us. Just look! When I was talking to the Toronto board of trade about all the things I am trying to do, someone sent me a note saying, "Keep talking, you sound like a Tory." Needless to say, I sat down.


Peter Elzinga: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It was nice to hear the minister confirm, for a change, that he agrees with the concept the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs just explained, for that minister told the House he believed that we should have government-operated boards for supply-management, instead of producer-operated boards. Apparently the minister agrees with this, and I am glad he put it on record. If he disagrees, I suggest that it is time for the minister to listen more and not talk so much.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the same to the hon. member. I said we differ. I said that basically I agree with his principles concerning supply-management. But you cannot have a rigid society totally based on supply-management. However, the hon. member knows exactly, because he asked me in committee if I supported the concept of producer-run marketing boards. I certainly do. I do not believe in bureaucrats running them. They do not run any for which I am responsible.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not state that I do not believe in producer-operated boards. I
Food Policy
said I do not favour a wide expansion of supply-management whereby bureaucrats essentially would set the estimates of demand levels. That is the only reference I made on the point, and I want to correct any possible misapprehension.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.
I say to the minister-and the record will show, I suggest- that he said "government operated boards."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members ought to be aware that this is a time set aside for questions and answers, not for statements to be made from both sides of the House. If the hon. member wishes to ask a supplementary question, I will recognize him. If nobody wishes to ask questions, we shall proceed to orders of the day.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, may I direct one further question to the Minister of Agriculture? What does the minister think of Bill C-42, and how does he think it will affect the food policy he just enunciated in the House?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should discuss Bill C-42 as it was presented to the House. I am willing to wait until that diligent, thorough and intelligent committee of the House of Commons has finished its studies and brings in its recommendations.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Since the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs just confirmed he does not favour wider application of the supply-management concept, such statement originally having been made in reply to my question concerning the possibility of setting up a broiler marketing board, I ask the minister if he favours the establishment of a broiler marketing board under the farm products marketing act. If so, how can he be of that view, considering the dichotomy developing between himself and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? Finally, will the minister tell the House-since we shall probably never see a repetition of today's double act in which two ministers make a statement-which minister will be responsible for implementing this strategy? Will it be himself, as Minister of Agriculture, or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, my colleague said the question of a broiler marketing board is before cabinet. I am surprised at the hon. member even asking the question. Perhaps the hon. member is trying to cast doubt on this question. The hon. member for Elgin and others have raised this question under our Standing Order 43 procedures. They want to know why I am not going ahead with the establishment of a broiler marketing board. I suggest the hon. member should consult some of the people in his party who are concerned about broiler production, because perhaps they can lend a helping hand. When I have talked on this subject to members of his party outside the House and asked, "Have you spoken to the hon. member for St. John's East?" they have told me, "We have our own problems, too."


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, but where does the minister stand?

June 10, 1977
Food Policy


Eugene Whelan: Parliament passed a law allowing poultry producers to make representations to the government, to say if they want to come under the national farm products marketing act. The poultry producers of this nation followed the proper procedure and held hearings across the country. They made representations to the Minister of Agriculture and 1 forwarded those to the cabinet. I say that our food strategy will be a harmonious strategy worked out by myself, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and other ministers concerned. One of the hon. member's colleagues this morning suggested that we are the people involved in the question. We are very much involved in this strategy paper and will be involved in attempts to make our food strategy work even better.


James Aloysius McGrath: If that is harmony, you are playing off-key.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has often spoken of oversupply of a commodity, but I think neither he nor the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs considered the question of undersupply. The minister said we can increase the production of certain commodities by several hundred per cent-I forget the exact figure. I ask, what strategy does the government propose to assure supply? Will that strategy penalize producers for underproduction, for not producing enough? For instance, three dairy seasons ago we encountered real difficulty when the production costs of milk supplements and concentrates rose steeply and milk production for the first time in our history actually decreased. Will any part of the strategy ensure certain specific levels of production? Further, does the minister propose to penalize producers who underproduce? So far he has talked about surpluses but not about underproduction.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the production of several commodities is governed by marketing boards. Let us be fair. Federally, we exercise control over the production of eggs and turkeys which come under the National Farm Products Marketing Board. The production of milk comes under the Canadian Dairy Commission established by an act of this parliament. Also, we have the Canadian Wheat Board, established in 1935 by the government headed by R. B. Bennett. However, no action was taken with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board Act until 1948.
Mr. Justice Emmett Hall said in his recently handed down report that the people of western Canada are unanimous in their support of the Canadian Wheat Board, a marketing board. No matter what anyone says, the Canadian Wheat Board is a marketing board. The hon. member sitting on my left said, at the recent dinner held in Toronto honouring him, that he was proud because as a civil servant he had been able to assist farmers. He was speaking of the setting up of the Canadian Wheat Board. The hon. member opposite talked of penalties for underproduction. Underproduction of what?


William Herbert Jarvis: Milk.


Eugene Whelan: I have nothing to do with penalizing for underproduction of milk, as the hon. member knows. There is a milk marketing system in Ontario, and Ontario just went through an election. The Conservative premier did not win the election outright, as he thought he would. I was surprised to note that not one of the party leaders fighting that election mentioned marketing boards, especially since 80 commodities produced in Ontario come under some sort of marketing board. Was this question raised as an issue? The provincial minister of agriculture, Mr. Newman, made a statement on marketing boards. He sent me a copy of it during the election campaign and said, "Gene, I am 100 per cent behind you in what you are trying to do for agriculture. However, that does not mean you have to be that rigid about marketing boards. The options with regard to marketing boards are as varied as the colours of the rainbow. The farmers can make that selection. The hon. member says the producers should make that selection, but do not foist anything on them. The beef producers in western Canada expressed the opinion that they do not want one. No one will foist anything on them as was done in 1935 with the Canadian Wheat Board. It is a fact that that happened at that time.


William Herbert Jarvis: What about milk?


Eugene Whelan: Milk is one of the most difficult products in the world to market. In our society we are throwing away food that is very costly to produce. It requires energy to manufacture the machinery, till the soil and do the planting. Even though it takes all that energy, we throw away 300 pounds of food per man, woman and child in all of Canada. We talk about penalizing these people because they do not produce enough. There is nothing in any program for which I would be responsible that would be so ridiculous. I do not know of any provincial program that penalizes if they are short of production. They are penalized at the bank.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, the minister has given a speech. I will not ask for equal time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course, there is unlimited time in this question and answer period. It is all right for the minister to say he does not want to take the time of the House, but I think he has had adequate time. We want to get on to the regular proceedings. I will permit one last question.


William Herbert Jarvis: The minister knows full well that had it not been for the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, production would have dropped substantially because of the threat of the lower quota. Do not let him tell me or anyone else that marketing boards have not been penalized for underproduction. That is absolute nonsense. The minister used milk as an example. I will use the same example. The minister says he has no control in the province of Ontario or any other province. Every Cheddar cheese plant in Ontario is short of milk. The minister is aware of the figures; they are available in his department. How can he say there has been overproduction, when cheddar cheese plants in my constituency and those of my friend to my
June 10, 1977

left-and probably in the minister's own riding-are short? How can he justify that shortage and at the same time import millions of pounds of offshore cheese? I think it is 50 million pounds.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Milk Marketing Board distributes milk in Ontario. They distribute their share of the national quota; we do not distribute it. They say whether it will go to the cheese factories. At the present time their quota is reviewed every three months. They can make application to have it increased if they wish. They can do that if the production needs are there. Don't blame the dairy commission for that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the minister to resume his seat. This is developing into a debate, and it is not the time for debate. We have had a statement by two ministers. Questions should be related to those statements, and not to all policies of both departments. I see that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, of whom a question has not been asked, wishes to comment on an answer by the minister. Unless he is rising on a point of order, we should proceed immediately to the introduction of bills.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To use the words of the late C. D. Howe, perhaps this is degenerating into a debate. At the same time, I feel 1 should have an opportunity to clarify one answer to a question asked by the hon. member for St. John's East. The answer of the Minister of Agriculture was incomplete. He has taken words out of my mouth and used them in his own statement. I will not take very long, perhaps a minute or a minute and a half.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister is not to generate another debate and bring the hon. member for St. John's East to his feet, I will give him the opportunity, as I would any hon. member, to make a point of clarification. However, I invite him to do it briefly and be to the point.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the point of clarification I want to make is that the Minister of Agriculture is quite right to support the schemes that now exist. He stated, quite accurately, the broiler marketing plan has been the subject of public hearings and is up for consideration by cabinet; but I said, expressing a personal view, that I would regret it if the supply-management concept was extended to many more commodities than it now applies to.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is exactly what he said.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my impression that this question period is not limited to people on only one side of the House. I wish to ask a question related to the statements that have been made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member did not rise in his place during the time of the question period. After I told the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot that he was the last questioner, and the hon. member saw an argument developing, he saw a reason to ask a question. In order to be fair to members of the
Order Paper Questions
government as well, I will recognize the hon. member, but on principle and not because the hon. member has helped himself to be recognized.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Speaker. I guess I was not popping up high enough earlier in the period. I wish to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a brief question. He said it was not a case of the government launching an over-all investigation into the food industry. I recall the statement by the Minister of Agriculture that there was to be a "review" of the "total marketing structure", including marketing boards. Can the minister assist us by explaining exactly what kind of study is going to be carried on? Will it be anything more than the usual attention of the director of competition policies with regard to certain sectors of the economy or will it be, as implied by the Minister of Agriculture, something new, extensive and total in line with the spirit I understand is intended for this green paper?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the director of combines and inquiries was perhaps highlighted by the fact that he did decide to make a study of the whole area of marketing boards and their effect on competition. Pursuant to this, he held a seminar which was within his authority. That seminar or inquiry was just one more aspect of his inquiry. I do not think it implies there will be a profound investigation in this area.


FISHERIES
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,491, 1,701, 1,785, 2,227 and 2,342.

June 10, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Malone: 1.	What was the total cost of operating Petro-Canada to November 30, 1976?
2.	What is the projected total expenditure for the next 12 months?
3.	How many exploratory wells for natural gas or crude oil had been drilled by Petro-Canada to November 30, 1976?
4.	How many wells drilled have revealed a field with oil or natural gas development potential?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. Please refer to Petro-Canada's Annual Report tabled in the House of Commons on April 5, 1977 pursuant to Section 75(3) of the Financial Administration Act.
2.	The Capital Budget for 1977 of Petro-Canada was approved on December 23, 1976 by P.C. 1976-3275. The total expenditures so indicated were $271.6 million for capital items and $20.5 million for operating costs including interest expense.
3 and 4. The figures available for wells drilled are based on year end December 31, 1976. The attached table includes only wells drilled by Petro-Canada and does not include wells drilled by Panarctic Oils Ltd. in which Canada has approximately 45% interest.
Wells Drilled (Gross Working Interest)
Exploratory
Oil	0
Gas	2
Dry	6
Sub-total	8
Appraisal/
Delineation
Oil	0
Gas	1
Dry	1
Sub-total	2
Development
Oil	7
Gas	33
Dry	3
Sub-total	43
Total	53


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	Did Parks Canada officials hold any discussions with representatives from DREE concerning the move of the Ontario Regional Office from Cornwall to Guelph and, if so (a) what were they (b) on what dates?
2.	What is the estimated (a) direct (b) indirect cost in (i) employment (ii) income to the Cornwall area resulting from the loss of the Parks Canada Regional Office?

3.	What is the latest figure for average family income in (a) Cornwall (b) Guelph?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Statistics Canada as follows: 1. Yes. (a) A meeting was held with DREE officials at their Toronto Regional Office to discuss the results of DREE's analysis of their programme involvement in the Cornwall area and to discuss the proposed Parks Canada relocation, (b) January 21, 1977.
2.	(a) (i) Employment-139 jobs; (ii) $2,150,000 annual payroll, (b) Approximate value of local goods and service purchase orders, $8,500 per year-office rental costs- $117,422.
3.	According to the 1971 Census following are the figures for average family income in (a) Cornwall and (b) Guelph. Cornwall, $8,972; Guelph, $10,677. The source of this information is 1971 Census, Bulletin 2.2-12, Table 87.
1976/77 PROMOTIONAL PROJECTS


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	With regard to Project No. 76-685 of the European Division of the Office of Export Programs and Services (a) what were the names and addresses of the 122 Canadian firms that participated (b) how many orders were placed for Canadian winter clothing during the project (c) what was the total value of the orders?
2.	Prior to Project No. 76-685 did any of these firms sell winter clothing in Europe?
3.	With regard to Project No. 76-695 of the Pacific, Asia and Africa Division of the Office of Export Programs and Services (a) what were the names and addresses of the Canadian firms that participated (b) how many orders were placed (c) what type of goods were ordered (d) what was the total value of the orders?
4.	Prior to Project No. 76-695 did any of these firms sell goods in Iran?
5.	With regard to Project No. 76-694 of the Pacific, Asia and Africa Division of the Office of Export Programs and Services (a) what were the names and addresses of the Canadian firms that participated (b) how many orders were placed (c) what type of goods were ordered (d) what was the total value of the orders?
6.	Prior to Project No. 76-694 did any of these firms sell goods in Iraq?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. (a) Canadian firms did not participate directly in this in-store promotion. C & A Brenninkmeyer conducted the promotion as a commercial endeavour. According to this source, 122 Canadian companies were selected to supply merchandise. Identity of these companies is proprietary to C & A Brenninkmeyer. (b) Firm orders were placed with 93 of these companies, (c) Total value of these orders at this time is $5,118,064.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) Participants are listed hereunder: Archidrome Steel Co. of Canada, 3100 Losch Boulevard, St. Hubert, P. Q. 678-4444 Bay Mills Ltd., 365 Evans Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M8Z 1K2, (416) 252-5711. Bombardier Limited, Valcourt, Quebec, JOE 2L0, (514) 532-2211. CA1M International Airport Consultants of Montreal Ltd., No. 1 Complex Desjardins, P. O. Box 63, Montreal, Quebec, H5B 1B2, (514)
June 10, 1977


Mr. Herbert: Since the inception of the programme, by province, how many $ 1000 grants have been paid to municipalities for units of modestly priced, medium density housing?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
Table 1
Municipal Incentive Grants, NHA Section 56.2 by Province, 1976-February 1977
Applications
Approved
Province	Received Number1	Number'	$000Newfoundland	227	167	167Prince Edward Island	-	-	-Nova Scotia	301	97	97New Brunswick	813	789	789Quebec	1,400	1,132	1,132Ontario	2,623	2,353	2,353Manitoba	154	142	142Saskatchewan	276	171	171Alberta	201	195	195British Columbia	1,373	1,010	1,010Canada	7,368	6,056	6,056
1 Housing Units.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	By province, what are the names of the universities who have received contributions or grants for the upgrading of sports facilities through the Physical Resources Development Programme of Fitness and Amateur Sport and, in each case, what was the amount?
2.	Have all universities in Canada been made aware of the programme and, if so, by what means?

June 10, 1977
Privileges and Immunities Act
3.	(a) How many universities applied for such grants (b) were any turned down and, if so, for what reason?
4.	Has the Memorial University of Newfoundland applied for such a grant?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sports)):: 1, Nova Scotia, Dalhousie University, $200,000; St. Francis Xavier University, 11,170; New Brunswick, Moncton University, 100,000; University of New Brunswick 75,000; Quebec, Universite de Sherbrooke, 400,000; Ontario, University of Toronto, 250,000; Manitoba, University of Manitoba, 250,000; British Columbia, University of British Columbia, 435,000; Simon Fraser University, 65,000; University of Victoria, 47,700.
2.	See answer to Parliamentary Enquiry No. 1,559 tabled on March 17, 1977.
3.	(a) 21; (b) 9 applications were turned down because they did not adequately relate to the terms and conditions of the Physical Resources Development Program. A final decision has not been completed on two (2) applications.
4.	No application was received. (See also answer to Parliamentary Enquiry No. 1,559 tabled on March 17, 1977.)


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,359 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Crosbie: From January 1, 1975 to date, what lawyers in the Province of Newfoundland were employed by (a) the Department of Justice (b) any other department, agency or Crown corporation of the government and how much was paid to each such lawyer?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill C-6, respecting diplomatic and consular privileges and immunities in Canada-Mr. Jamieson-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Otto Emil Lang: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-3, to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT
Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to make a few brief remarks concerning this measure. The motor vehicle safety law emerged as a result of co-operative action between the provinces and the federal government in an attempt to come to grips with the need to improve the standard of motor vehicles in terms of general safety. This co-operation has been shown in the preparation of the legislation and, as well, in the general enforcement of its provisions. We sought to improve safety standards by imposing a variety of requirements on manufacturers and others. Close liaison between the governments continues as we work together in this important field. We hold regular meetings in connection with vehicle safety and we have set a number of targets in an attempt to lower the rate of vehicle accidents and deaths. I am delighted that these measures seem to be having the desired effect.
The safety standards take into account a variety of features including specifications for crash avoidance and crashworthi-

June 10, 1977

ness as well as environmental protection. Examples of crash avoidance standards are those related to steering, braking and vision. Crashworthiness standards are related to interior padding, bumpers, side-door strength, roof-crashing resistance and, of course, seat belts and their availability. The placement of seat belts throughout automobiles and similar vehicles has, 1 am sure, contributed to the diminution of injuries and deaths in accidents.
Since the proclamation of the act on January 1, 1971, the number of motor vehicles registered in Canada has grown from 8.5 million to 12.5 million, an increase of almost 50 per cent, which means that traffic density has greatly increased on our roads. Notwithstanding this, I am pleased to say that over the same period of time the number of deaths per 100 million vehicle miles has fallen from 6.7 to an estimated 4.7, a decrease of 30 per cent. 1 believe that activity under the act accounts for a significant portion of this welcome improvement. I have in mind steps such as the following: 76 new safety regulations and amendments were issued and implemented; 3.7 million vehicles were recalled to correct safety-related deficiencies; 4,545 public complaints on possible safety-related defects were investigated and resolved; 3,500 audit inspections of manufacturers and imports were performed; and 9,800 tests of vehicles and their components were carried out to determine whether federal safety standards had been complied with.

In the amending bill we propose to make improvements and provide clarification to make the legislation even more effective. I refer to matters which have become apparent during the six years of the administration of the act. The specific objectives of the present bill are to remove doubts as to whom the act addresses, to require the retention of records, to make the notice of defect requirements more effective, to provide exemptions from some requirements in order to permit technological development without inhibition, and to make the penalty for violating the notice of defect requirements consistent with other penalties under the act and in similar federal statutes.
I can assure hon. members that the co-operative attitude existing between the provinces and the federal government will continue. I think many members will welcome the improvement in relation to seat belts and their general use. While there will be differences of opinion about whether mandatory legislation in this field is the desired route to take-and the provinces have gone both ways in this regard-there is unanimous agreement about the desire for education and encouragement, and our recent campaigns, advertising and encouragement of the use of seat belts, have had their part to play, I think.
I therefore commend the bill at second reading to the House, and I believe there is general agreement that the bill be referred to the committee of the whole so that we may complete that stage in this House at this time as well.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister most heartily for his remarks
Motor Vehicle Safely
and let him know that what he has already said is correct, that the bill has the general approval of those of us on this side of the House. Before we pass it at this stage I should like to make some fairly important comments, in my view, on the main principles and thrusts of the original legislation and this amending bill as it passes through the House of Commons.
On September 13, 1899, a certain H. H. Bliss, a real estate agent broker in Central Park West, New York City, stepped down from what was then called a horse drawn tramway. He was struck down and killed by what was referred to in the New York Times the next day as a "horseless carriage". As far as we know, Mr. Speaker, his was the first recorded automobile death in North American history.
Since 1899 there have been more victims killed on the roads of North America in or by motor vehicles than there were in all the wars in history. It is a world-wide epidemic. Dr. Wilder Penfield and his successors at the Montreal Neurological Institute called the epidemic of highway motor vehicle deaths and injuries "an uncontrolled world-wide epidemic." We are talking about the number one killer of our young people under 35. After cancer and heart disease we are talking about the number three killer in the entire population.
Suffice it to say that at one time or another we all attempt to place blame for motor vehicle deaths or injuries sometimes on the driver, sometimes on the road, and sometimes on the vehicle. That is an easy thing to do. We are not so much interested in blame as we are in taking what most people term today the epidemiological approach to this world-wide, uncontrolled epidemic, treating the road and surroundings as the atmosphere in the epidemic, the driver as the agent, and the car as the microbe.
In terms of this world-wide epidemic we are dealing today more particularly with the automobile, and I would commend the minister for a very progressive step forward. When man took to the air there was no question whatever that aircraft were manufactured, altered, and inspected under the strictest rules of law at all levels. The same is true of rolling stock on railways. From the very beginning all over the world you could not build, alter or touch a piece of rolling stock on a railway without the highest degree of regulation in terms of building, inspection, and alteration.
Somehow or other-and there is no use analysing it too profoundly today-the automobile per se, at least until very recent history, in terms of its manufacture, alteration, and inspection has been outside the rule of law and public regulation. As I say, I want to move away from the notion of who is to blame, whether a disinterested public, an inactive governmental authority or an irresponsible industry. I have been talking about that for years. Today I think we are going to make progress by co-operation.
In these days of contemporary consumerism we realize that we have the right to expect from government and the automobile industry production of the safest and best possible motor vehicles that science and technology and industry can produce. It is all very well to say that the consumer should know. To a great extent, with a high degree of public information the

June 10, 1977
Motor Vehicle Safety
consumer should be made to know. But in the very technical area of the manufacture of motor vehicles it is incumbent on government and industry to produce the best and the safest motor vehicles possible in terms of safety and consumer protection, in view of the world-wide epidemic to which I have just referred.
Another footnote might be this, Mr. Speaker, that it is the only world-wide epidemic we know of today which is compounding at, say, a 5 per cent annual increase in many places, though not necessarily in Canada.
Before terminating my remarks I want to refer specifically to some of the aspects of this amending bill. I am very interested in safety features and the motor vehicles safety branch. The government has largely done a good job of making sure that safety features on motor vehicles are mandated, but I hope that in co-operation with the provinces and the government the motor vehicle industry will stop talking about safety features and start talking about performance standards, because what we are often doing is adding after the fact safety features to intrinsically unsafe motor vehicles.
While we are making progress with safety features, I repeat that we are adding these safety features in many instances to motor vehicles, be they trucks, cars or whatever, which already by design and by marketing and advertising concepts are unsafe. In future I hope we will talk about more than simply adding safety features to intrinsically unsafe motor vehicles. Rather, we should be talking about the government mandating, at the design stage, performance standards for our motor vehicles.
I want to add my full support to the concept of air bags. I regret to say that while 1 think many of the shoulder harnesses and restraints that we have already are very good, a great improvement over what we had ten years ago, they can be improved. For example, the moment the occupant of a vehicle locks the doors of the vehicle and secures his seat belt, in terms of percentages the risk of death on the highway is reduced by about 40 per cent. We know that 65 per cent of the deaths on highways are produced at collision speeds under 45 miles an hour, believe it or not, when an occupant is thrown out of a vehicle. Thus the restraint systems are very important.
I have heard the industry's rebuttal to the air bag system, that it is imperfect and at times it may function when you do not want it to function. There is also the problem, vis-a-vis the air bags, of damage being caused to the ears if it goes off when it should not. From the research I have made with my assistants, and those who have been so kind as to help me in those areas, no matter what is happening in the United States the minister should come forth and support air bags in motor vehicles. It is the most advantageous restraint system we know of at the present time. As I say, in the whole area of building safer cars, we should insist on performance standards as opposed to adding safety features to intrinsically unsafe motor vehicles.
There are specific amendments in the bill relating to the whole notion of recalls. We on this side are concerned about that, and the minister is as well. In the United States when any one of the automobile industries announces a recall, they make sure by surveying industry procedures that the recall is not only made but is effectively made in terms of the regulations [DOT]which require the filing of registered letters at the central commission in Washington by industry and others. We are not quite up to that mark in Canada, but I would like the minister, when we go through the committee stage, to assure us that the recall amendments mean effective recall in terms of Canadian performance.
In conjunction with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) I should like to see, under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a more regular public reporting system whereby there will be requirements under the regulations for the motor vehicle safety branch to make public its findings, even though they are not totally completed, at certain given intervals. Thus the public, the government, and industry in some instances, will know exactly where we are going in terms of safety features and standards in automobiles.
In our committee members on this side of the House have discussed this. I am not suggesting that part of one empire should go to another without great consideration, but because of the very specific work the motor vehicle safety branch is doing, I am wondering whether this specific branch and its group of dedicated and available people should not be under the aegis of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I know it is a transport matter, but as I see that section of the minister's department developing and doing its good work, it would be more effective if the motor vehicle safety branch reported directly, as things are now, to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I realize it was difficult to visualize that two or three years ago, but I feel it should be considered.
In terms of the world-wide epidemic of motor vehicle and highway deaths and injuries, everyone has a pet theory. We have heard them in conversations, but we really do not know. We have heard reference to drunken driving and this sort of thing. If we were to take an epidemiological approach, most accidents involve the road, the car, and the driver. Very often we do not know why people get into accidents, and once in an accident, what kills or injures them.
One of the basic things we need here in Ottawa, without building up a bureaucracy to touch upon the whole area of accident prevention, is a co-ordinated accident prevention research collecting bureau in order to get much more coordinated data before we move into the area of accident prevention. I am referring to data in terms of why people get into accidents and what are the causes of injuries and deaths once in them. We know today we are talking about standards and many features in automobiles which will help prevent people getting into motor vehicle accidents in the first place. It is all very well to say people were silly to get in them, but they do get in them. We should look into reducing the possibility of death, injury and/or serious injury. Perhaps the minister
[Mr. Graffteyl
June 10, 1977

would agree that this is a step forward vis-a-vis a very serious problem. We hope this is just a small step forward and that we can expect bigger and better things in relation to a very important problem in the months and years ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have known occasions, believe it or not, when this House has spent a great deal of time on something not really very important. This afternoon I think we are doing the reverse of that. We are in a mood to pass, within a reasonably short period of time, a measure which is quite important.
Although the motion, as it was read from the Chair, called for the reference of this bill after second reading to the appropriate standing committee, when that time comes, Mr. Speaker, you will find that there is consent on all sides of the House to refer it to the committee of the whole so that we can put the bill through all of its stages today.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) has pointed out in his speech today, and on many other occasions, that one of the very serious problems facing the human race is coping with accidents which take place on the highways. It strikes me that the short debate we are having this afternoon is, in a sense, a sequel to a very important debate we had a week ago today on a motion introduced in private members' hour by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan). There were a number of speeches, which I think were very important and constructive, on that occasion. I should like to mention in particular the speech of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Andres) who gave us the statistics which make action in the field of motor vehicle safety extremely important. We had also worth while contributions by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas), the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) and the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook). What we are doing this afternoon is a case of acting, at least in part, on the pleas made last Friday afternoon.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has emphasized that there are three elements with respect to motor vehicle travel-there is the motor vehicle itself, the highway, and the driver. What we are concerned with this afternoon is of course the motor vehicle. We are glad that the minister is able to report that the co-operation among the various levels of government in this country is good. We understand from that that the provincial governments are prepared to accept the amendments which are being made this afternoon in the bill which is before us.
We welcome the extent to which the standards are being raised and the enforcement procedures being tightened, and I join the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi in expressing the hope that the recall provision and other measures contained in this legislation will really be implemented.
So, as I have already said, this is one of those cases where we are dealing with something that is extremely important, but
Motor Vehicle Safety
we do not have to spin it out to emphasize that fact, and we are glad to give our support to this bill.
I have just one other word which I should like to offer, and again it is a case of recalling the excellent debate that we had a week ago today on the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth during which the statement was made on several occasions that alcohol and gasoline do not mix. I hope that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) will give his support to the campaign which the Minister of National health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is waging in that respect.
It is an important measure that we have before us this afternoon. We are prepared to give it second reading, to put it through committee of the whole, and to give it third reading before four o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Otto Emil Lang: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent of the House to amend the motion to change the reference to the committee of the whole.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion put by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is that the bill be referred to committee of the whole. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Ethier in the chair.
On Clause 1.
Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Chairman, I did not take part in the second reading debate on this bill because I understood it was going into committee of the whole and at that time I would have the opportunity to make some remarks on behalf of my colleagues, the hon. member for Pembina and the hon. member for Vegreville, the latter having had discussions with the minister regarding this bill.
We are in general agreement with what the government is proposing in this legislation. Nevertheless there are one or two sleepers there on which we would like to have some answers, and I understand the hon. member for Vegreville, who is not able to be here at this time, has discussed them with the Minister of Transport.
It is my understanding that the minister would be prepared to accept an amendment to Clause 1(2) to exclude farm tractors from this legislation. Some of us who are closely related to agriculture are concerned about this clause as it relates to farm tractors and the inclusion of the definition of manufacturing as it relates to farm tractors. It is my understanding, as well as that of my colleagues, that if a farmer renovates a machine in any way, he can be considered, under this piece of legislation, as a manufacturer. In other words, if you have a tractor and you put a cab on it or change the cab or do something along that line, then according to the definition

June 10, 1977
Motor Vehicle Safety
in this bill you are considered a manufacturer and considered liable in case of any accident.
Therefore, so that we do not have to come back to this piece of legislation some time in the future to request the exemption of farm tractors, I suggest that we should amend it now, and I would ask the minister whether there is any requirement for the inclusion of farm tractors. Also, can the minister tell us whether there is any incompatibility in the definitions of federal and provincial jurisdictions.
Another point that I should like to make is that it is difficult to differentiate between farm tractors and other motorized farm vehicles such as swathers, combines, bale wagons, power balers, and so on. We should take a really serious look at this.
If the minister has had a discussion with the hon. member for Vegreville in this regard and is prepared to accept this amendment, perhaps I should not prolong the debate any further but move the following amendment:
That Clause 1 be amended by striking out lines 21 and 22 at page 1 thereof, and substituting therefor the following:
"motorized snow vehicles, but does not include any vehicle"
All the amendment does is to omit farm tractors from this legislation.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to concur with the amendment of the hon. member for Red Deer which has the effect of removing farm tractors from the bill. They had been included with the general thought of imposing obligations on the manufacturer which can only benefit the farmers and farm community. However, the hon. member for Vegreville raised the question of whether the word "manufacturer" was accurately or sufficiently defined to exclude the dealer who happens to put a cab upon a tractor. I think it could be argued that that is not in fact a manufacturer, even within this definition, but rather than leave that point in doubt, and with the knowledge that we might want to come back to deal further with combines and other motorized machinery which goes on the road, it seems to me quite satisfactory to accept this amendment at this point and therefore to eliminate farm tractors and to proceed with the bill.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, no one would indicate that there is any division whatsoever on this side in terms of the amendment to the amendment which would now exempt in the definition-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not the minister's amendment.


William Heward Grafftey: I said the amendment to the amendment. I would just like to put a proviso. I feel obliged to bring before the House very briefly the fact that while we are excluding farm tractors from the definition-and I assume we would not to be able to mandate standards-I hope farm tractor manufacturers will be cognizant of the importance of roll bars on tractors.

Far too many farmers, under fatigued conditions or whatever, roll their tractors and are killed, and I hope that while we are not including farm tractors in the definition, in the future the industry will, wherever possible, voluntarily include as standard equipment roll bars to prevent what is a very serious thing on far too many farms, rolling tractors which kill drivers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, 1 too should like to indicate my unhappiness with the amendment, namely, the elimination of farm tractors from the definition of a motor vehicle. However, if that is necessary in order to get the legislation through, I am not going to stand in its way, but I am pleased that the Minister of Transport has suggested that possibly later on there can be other amendments covering all motorized farm equipment. As the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi pointed out, what we are concerned about here is not how the operators of farm machinery behave; we are concerned about putting an onus on the manufacturer.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On Clause 3.
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister exactly what changes this particular amendment would make in terms of government involvement in recall procedures. Would the minister briefly inform the House to what extent the motor vehicle safety branch of his department is involved in recalls? Very often we read in the newspapers that half a million cars which have a certain defect are being recalled. What actions does the department take to make sure that these recalls are not only made but also that the defects or potential defects are rectified at the distributor level?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, the amendment would require that notice come to the department as well as to all of the people who may have a particular model of vehicle, and in that sense it is a clarification which will assure that the notice reaches out. This will allow the department to deal with the issue of whether the matter is being properly handled and rectified, and I think that should allow for a better administration of the legislation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, in keeping with some concerns I have had with regard to other legislation put forward by various departments-particularly put forward by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-I am ever conscious that in imposing controls on products there is a tendency for almost massive over-kill. In other words, it is one thing to produce a commodity and another to use it properly. There is another matter of producing a commodity and saying that it must be absolutely safe. Rule upon rule is piled up, and control upon control is piled up.
While these rules may be aimed at the absolute in safety, they should, in my view, also be aimed at those who do not make proper use of products. After all, there is no such thing
June 10, 1977

as introducing a feature into a vehicle without cost, and the more we have tinkered with requirements, the more costly it has been.
Some brainstorms have hit some legislatures in North America with regard to so-called safety standards, and legislation has been passed. Perhaps everybody was out golfing and there were only a handful of interested people around, much like this afternoon, who pushed something through in the urgency of their consideration. The net result is that when they wake up on Monday morning they realize what they have done, and the whole thing is impractical. It must be remembered that all of those so-called safety standards do cost, and who pays for them? The consumer. When designing regulations there is a tendency on the part of bureaucrats to think that those regulations are for the benefit of the public. Certainly they are for the benefit of the public, but not for the benefit of the public's purse.
Bill C-16, Bill C-42, and other proposals not only from this year but from prior years have all resulted in massive cost increases which are borne by the public, and we are not sure those measures actually meet the safety needs because there are so many accidents which result from the misuse and abuse of vehicles. There is no such thing as making a vehicle safe for the fool, and not only for the fool but also for the person who deliberately misuses machines and equipment. I think reasonableness has to be introduced into all of these standards. I am not saying these things with particular respect to what the minister proposes here.
In considering the guidelines we want to impose with regard to motor vehicle safety I would be one of the first to say that manufacturers must be careful. However, as careful as they might be, there will be many recalls for the purpose of replacing certain equipment. Perhaps we should err on the side of safety, but there have been accidents which were caused by lack of caution, by mental fatigue or mental failure. It is only by the continued misuse of certain equipment that there may be breakdowns. Bearing that in mind, I hope we are not going to impose standards which will cause totally unnecessary costs to the manufacturers of equipment, particularly automobiles, whether they be produced domestically or whether they come from abroad. Those are matters that we also have to consider because everyone has a bottom line figure for the cost of their living each year.


Mr. Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment briefly on the standards set for snowmobiles. In the last ten years these machines have become the main means of transportation in northern Canada in a quite revolutionary manner.
We have seen many models come into the north and some do not meet our safety standards. This has led to numerous accidents. Some manufacturers may regard these as pleasure vehicles but that is not the case in the north were 75 per cent or 80 per cent are working vehicles. The vehicles used by hunters and trappers need not have standards as restrictive as
Motor Vehicle Safety
those imposed on racing vehicles, but there should be a reasonable standard. We do not have snow removal service for the roads in northern communities so nearly every family has a snowmobile. Dog teams are a thing of the past. An exceptionally high standard imposed on working snowmobiles would cause economic hardship for trappers and fishermen.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I should like to assure hon. members that just as we have been having very good co-operation and consultation with the provinces, so we have with manufacturers. I agree that we need to know the cost of changes and additions. This is a general problem with regulations, and I am stressing it with the department and warning them to take it into consideration.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I should like to rectify what I think is a public misconception based on industry misrepresentation. Motor vehicle research in the United States, corroborated by good research in Canada, has consistently shown that if we design safe vehicles and put the safest product on the road, costs would decline. We are told it is the marketing procedures and the expectations of north Americans that increase the costs of motor vehicles. I think this argument should be demolished very quickly.
I have heard the industry argue in front of United States subcommittees, where I too have argued, that people can be given a safe car if they will pay the price. I regret that my colleagues have fallen for that because I can prove that if safety were the priority item it could be provided in a less expensive vehicle than is on the market today. I caution my colleagues not to accept the industry argument that building safe design standards into automobiles can or should have a great effect on the price.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On Clause 4.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville, who has been closely associated with the automotive industry, I would like to get clarification of Clause 4 from the minister as there seems to be an inconsistency in the legislation. Safety standards were to be prescribed by law and at the same time steps were being taken to allow some vehicles to be exempted. Proposed section 9.1 reads as follows:
"(1) On application by a manufacturer or importer of motor vehicles of a class for which safety standards have been prescribed under section 4 or 7, the Governor in Council may by order exempt any particular model of motor vehicle from compliance with any prescribed safety standards applicable to that model of motor vehicle where compliance with such safety standards would, in the opinion of the Governor in Council,
(a)	create substantial financial hardship for the manufacturer or importer applying for the exemption;
(b)	prevent the development of new safety features that are equivalent to or superior to prescribed safety standards;

June 10, 1977
Motor Vehicle Safety
Then I go to proposed section 9.1(4) which reads as follows:
(4) Where a manufacturer or importer applies for an exemption under paragraph (l)(a), an exemption shall not be granted if
(a)	the world production of motor vehicles by the manufacturer exceeds ten thousand motor vehicles per year; or
(b)	the total number of motor vehicles manufactured for or imported into the Canadian market by the manufacturer or importer exceeds one thousand motor vehicles per year.
The hon. member for Vegreville was concerned about this discrepancy and perhaps the minister could help us with this.


Otto Emil Lang: The problem is that in certain cases it may be desirable to allow vehicles into Canada without meeting all the standards in order that various tests and experiments can take place. This is certainly not intended as a wide application but rather to deal with special cases.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I may have some misconceptions concerning Clause 4 and I am sure the minister can clear them up. I have often been concerned about the problem of imports, especially of small cars. It seems impossible for any of them even to begin measuring up to our safety and performance standards. I have some very strong personal notions about this. We know for example that a person in a small car that gets hit by a large car is more apt to be injured or killed.
What kind of discretion does the minister intend be given here? I hope there will not be blanket permission to import motor vehicles that, because of design features, cannot meet the standards of north American vehicles. First, I have always said that the size and design of North American motor vehicles suits our roads. Second, I am concerned in case we should harm the North American industry. I want to see adequate safety standards maintained on our highways. What kind of discretion would this clause give the minister? I am thinking of discretion relating to the importation of foreign manufactured motor vehicles which do not meet the performance and safety standards of domestically produced motor vehicles.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, the clause is drafted in such a way as to show the narrow spirit in which it is to be interpreted. The minister and the department were concerned about the exemption, since without adequate limitations there might be an undue number of requests coming forward under the section. I suggest that the limitation in terms of the time period, the need for assurance that good faith has been shown in attempts to meet standards where they may not have been applicable, and the fact that proposed subsection (5) imposes a limit with respect to 1,000 units of a particular model, means that this clause cannot be used successfully for the ordinary introduction of a commercial vehicle in the ordinary way.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I understand, therefore, that the minister does not visualize any discretionary powers under this clause which would allow the wholesale importation to Canada of cars which do not meet the performance and safety standards of domestically manufactured vehicles.
[Mr. Towers.J


Otto Emil Lang: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The clause really has to do with the exceptional case.


Mr. Daudlin:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister this question-it is somewhat similar to the question raised by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. Will this provision allow for the importation of non-North American manufactured cars incorporating safety devices different from those found on domestic vehicles? For example, some foreign units are easily crushed, whereas domestic cars are equipped with bumpers designed to withstand impacts at speeds up to five miles per hour. Will this provision allow foreign companies which have incorporated, shall we say, novel safety features in their design to demonstrate their vehicles in the Canadian market? I ask this since the safety concepts of foreign manufacturers are as valid as those of North American manufacturers. Will those vehicles be allowed entry to this country?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, perhaps such vehicles could be brought in for testing and demonstration under Canadian conditions, but the clause is not intended to allow other types of safety standards. If we are persuaded other types of safety features are adequate, the regulations applying to Canadian, North American and foreign imports will need to be broadened to allow for that alternative safety feature. I think that would be the orderly approach.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 4 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Otto Emil Lang: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there is a general disposition to call it four o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, and private bills.
June 10, 1977


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I think there is general agreement on all sides to proceed with BiltC-239 this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed to proceed with Bill No. C-239 and that all preceding bills shall stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is so ordered.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Frank Oberle: that Bill C-239, to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I read into the record the main portions of the bill I should like to see referred to committee. The language of the bill is as follows:
1. The Canada Labour Code is amended by adding the following immediately after section 186:
186.1 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, no provision in a collective agreement requiring an employer
(a)	to discharge an employee because such employee refuses to become a member of, or to undertake to become a member of a specified trade union, or
(b)	to discharge an employee because such employee is or continues to be a member of, or engages in activities on behalf of a union other than a specified trade union,
is valid.
(2) No provision in a collective agreement requiring an employer to make a deduction or deductions from the remuneration paid to an employee to be credited to a specified trade union, is valid unless such deduction or deductions are authorized by the employee.
This bill could have far-reaching implications for our traditional industrial relations and entire social order. Much is written and said these days about the difficulties encountered in our country's industrial relations process. Therefore I shall quote two paragraphs of an article Mr. Paul Johnson wrote in the New Statesman. He wrote:
The compulsory enforcement of the closed shop by parliamentary statute is the greatest disaster which has befallen liberty in my lifetime ...
In his article he also referred to the decision of the mother of parliaments, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, compelling every worker in that country to belong to a trade union. He went on to say that what the Government of the United Kingdom did "is very likely illegal under the European Rights Convention, of which Britain is a signatory."
I suggest that union closed shops and certain other provisions we have included both in federal and provincial labour
Canada Labour Code
codes contravene the Canadian Bill of Rights because they offend against one of democracy's cardinal principles, the right to freedom of association. In my considered opinion we need to restructure our present system to make it work better so that all sectors of our economic community can work more closely together.
Recently there has been talk of certain tripartite negotiations which, in my opinion, would be a step in the right direction. There are two sides to the bargaining table, each side has to yield equally. The difficulties our nation has experienced owing to labour strikes are well known and need not be expanded on, for they are irrefutable fact. What alarms me more is what may happen in the future.
I am proposing this legislation that is Bill C-239 in an attempt to bring co-operation and harmony into the industrial labour relations process. Labour unrest is often the result of failure of our economic policy to satisfy labour, management, and government.
The present collective bargaining process is too often based on confrontation. As we were told in the last week by the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais), the postal union even has an adversary clause in their contract. The minister is engaged in his annual battle with that particular union, trying to arrive at an agreement which will fit into the context of our contemporary law and rules.
The union card is becoming more important than the parliamentary vote in the sense that it confers a greater amount of political power. This is a very dangerous development. We are moving away from a society based on the freely signed contract in which one man pledges to work for another and the other man pledges to provide him with work. We are moving to a more restricted society where a man can no longer freely sell his labour.
The principles which outline the union organization are hardly democratic. The concepts of compulsory membership, compulsory union dues, and closed shop unions are essentially a denial of individual rights and freedoms of every citizen. Union bureaucrats enjoy an enormous amount of power over the rank and file members of their organizations.
The closed shop union is a most powerful weapon. It effectively deprives the organized worker of his individual options, in other words, his fundamental rights. Unions seem reluctant to consider themselves part of the economy. More impetus is directed toward profits through wages. Little is gained in terms of co-operation and development of sensible policy goals.
The unions argue that they need this power for which they have worked hard and to which they were entitled at one time to maintain their democratic posture and rights. They need this power to achieve their collective goals. I am more concerned about the goals and the rights of the individual. If the government could make it compulsory for every citizen who achieves the benefits of what we do here in the House of Commons or what the government does to belong to the Liberal party, it would streamline the operation immensely. It
6556

June 10, 1977
Canada Labour Code
could be streamlined to the point that it is streamlined in other parts of the world where we have that kind of autocratic and demogogic system. Members opposite agree that everyone would benefit from the achievements the government thinks it is producing for our country. The union argues that everyone who shares in the benefits should contribute. Therefore, it would be a logical argument that everyone should join the Liberal party. Even my friends across the aisle would not agree with that ill-conceived logic.
If we examine the union movement in Great Britain we can observe the virtual destruction of an economy by self-centered unions. Rule by trade union bureaucrats, who necessarily think in terms of their members only, has crippled the economy of the United Kingdom, with disastrous effects for the ordinary citizen, the unorganized. Today in Canada the union movement involves about one third of the labour force, but demands, and receives two thirds of the gross national product which is labour's share. The concern of all of us in this House has to be for the other two thirds.
The other two thirds, who contribute most to our economy and the development of this country, work for companies that are not oligopolies or monopolies. They work for the small businessmen. That sector of our economy does not have the same power as the larger corporations which are trying to compete with the government in the power play in this country.
We are concerned that this kind of system should exist where two thirds of the economy, two thirds of the enterprise system, is not unionized; two thirds of business, and two thirds of labour. We are establishing a situation where we sit down with one third of the labour force, one third of the business community, and share with them the power given to us by all Canadians. This can only mean that the unorganized worker is left out in the cold, much like the small elite businessman who faces a giant corporation; only the scraps are left for the most vital elements of the economy.
The European community have managed to solve many of their labour problems by combining the union leaders and business directors together under a neutral chairman, on the board of directors. It is not a bargaining process but a joint decision-making process. The worker has an insight into internal operations, something which is almost totally absent in our system. This also ensures that unions do not take more out of the economy than the economy can reasonably provide. In these times of high inflation it is important that we instill a similar spirit of co-operation, not confrontation, into our own industrial process. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and the government know that.
1 greeted with a certain degree of enthusiasm the announcement by the Minister of Labour that $10 million would be taken out of the taxpayer's purse to provide unions with the means of training their representatives to take part in this co-operative spirit. I wonder if an equal amount of money will be set aside for the small businessman. He too will have to play a more active role if we are to succeed in the objectives we have set for ourselves.

Workers in most unions in Canada are not only compelled to be members but also to support a political party. This is the crux of the whole system. The political party that is supported may not meet individual approval, but nonetheless it receives funds from the union for election campaigns. Of course it is no secret that the party which is supported by the unions is not the Liberal party, but the NDP. This is not only very dangerous but is extremely undemocratic. One of the cardinal principles of democracy is the freedom of association. In my opinion, unions deny that privilege. Looking again at the European labour model, it is illegal for unions to involve themselves in the political process in that way.
Instead of compulsory membership in any one union we must ensure that every Canadian worker has voluntary access to a union. That is the crux of the whole thing. Every Canadian worker needs to be unionized in some way, but he does not need to be compelled; he needs voluntary access. Right to work legislation in the United States has actually increased union membership. Every study I have made of the various states which have adopted legislation of this kind shows that union memberships have increased. It does not infringe upon the democratic process. Rather, it substantiates it. There is evidence to indicate that union members themselves support such measures and often feel that leaders of the unions do not express the true desire of the rank and file.
A high percentage of Vancouver area residents, for example, including over half of the trade union members interviewed in a survey carried out by Sterling Press, favoured the introduction of right to work legislation in British Columbia, a province where unions are firmly entrenched. Over 79 per cent of those expressing an opinion favoured this sort of legislation.
In another survey, carried out in Saskatchewan by the Public Relations and Communications Associates of Regina for the Employers Association of Saskatchewan, it was shown that almost 80 per cent of the union members polled felt too much power was concentrated in the hands of their labour leaders and of big unions in Canada.
What I would like to see established in Canada, Mr. Speaker, is a voluntary union structure whereby all Canadians would have potential access to union membership. Of those polled in Regina, 69 per cent felt that a man or woman should be able to hold a job whether or not they belonged to a union. This is only equitable. Our society has been built on a system of co-operation.
A former NDP labour minister in British Columbia, Mr. King, used to describe B.C. workers as little capitalists, determined to maximize their profits through wages. This is not an appropriate analogy because the capitalist does not maximize his profit at the risk of endangering the health and vigour of his enterprise. He uses profits to expand and modernize his facilities. Selfish union demands have led to high wages in British Columbia and have cost the province much of its edge in international trade. I may add it has had the same effect on trade within our country as well. Our labour costs now run
June 10, 1977

about 25 per cent higher, enabling neighbouring states within the United States to market the same resources, often to the same customers, at lower prices that we can offer. The resulting slump in the economic activity only adds to the umemploy-ment and inflation rates recently registered in British Columbia.
Let us endeavour to develop a system based upon participation and co-operation. In 1975 only Italy had a higher percentage of man-hours lost due to strikes than did Canada-among industrial nations surveyed. If we do not stand to benefit from the current program then we are foolish to maintain it. I do not wish to destroy the bargaining power which unions possess. In all fairness, many of our labour leaders have exhibited a great deal of restraint and intelligence in recent years. Meetings between members on this side of the House and labour leaders have been held in recent years and they understand some of the problems which are facing us. They know there is a need to compromise and to restructure the system, but they have little faith in a government which is offering the kinds of negotiations which have so far been inherent in the industrial relations process.
The unorganized worker is simply not getting his fair share. Public confidence in collective bargaining as a method of reaching agreement on wages and benefits is sagging. Union leaders are not satisying half their members, and high wages are blamed for the economic woes we are experiencing. These factors indicate to me that the time is ripe to restructure the framework within which unions operate-not to restrict their activity but to expand it in a co-operative way.
Unions are not the only ones guilty of irresponsibility today. We all must shoulder a certain amount of the blame for our present problems, especially those members who sit on the opposite side of the House. I urge my colleagues to support the measure before us in the public and the national interest. We have seen the beneficial effects that right to work legislation has had in other parts of the world. We know that it is viable both in theory and in practice. It is time we awoke to the reality of our dilemma and developed new tools to improve our situation. That is our duty and our purpose for being here. I appeal to all hon. members to support this legislation, which would constitute a most important first step toward a more up-to-date, fluid, and cohesive industrial relations system.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, in presenting the bill before us, presents a tidy package, one tied up with a presentable and attractive bow. But I think that when it is opened ,one finds a degree of cynicism which makes it rather unacceptable. The hon. member seems to start from a position which it would appear he would not want to be seen to support, that is, that the unions should not have rights with respect to security in terms of those areas where they now enjoy certification.
The hon. member says he does not want to see certain rights removed from the unions-their security-but he feels that by tying up his package in terms of right to work legislation he will be able to make the terms of Bill C-239 acceptable. I find I cannot take that candy pill. It seems to me that what we are
Canada Labour Code
dealing with here is perhaps, in some form, a misconception by the hon. member in terms of the current state of the law in Canada.
Looking at the Canada Labour Code, one reads under certain sections, such as section 161, that nothing prohibits parties to a collective agreement from including in the collective agreement a provision requiring, as a condition of employment, membership in a specified trade union, or granting a preference for employment to members of a specified trade union. This is permissive legislation, not mandatory legislation requiring that when certification takes place only a certain number from a union may work in a shop.
It is true there are situations where negotiations have taken place which have resulted in a closed shop. But surely that is as a result of negotiation, not as a result of any kind of mandatory decision by the government, management or the union. It would seem to me that labourers have the right, first of all, to join a union-the hon. member has admitted that. In addition, labourers enjoy the expanded right to negotiate with employers a situation in which they are the only source of labour. I see nothing wrong in that, provided it is not imposed. It seems to me all the legislation provides the format and the mechanism whereby, if that situation is being abused, decertification of a union could take place and control could once again be gained by the labourers.
More important is subsection (2) of the amendment proposed by the hon. member. I quote:
No provision in a collective agreement requiring an employer to make a deduction or deductions from the remuneration paid to an employee to be credited to a specified trade union, is valid unless such deduction or deductions are authorized by the employee.
I am a product of a law school which had the honour to have as its first dean, Dean Rand, the noted Supreme Court Judge who, after retirement from the bench, went on to teach men and women such as myself what the law was all about. I had the pleasure to study law under the man who, as hon. members know, was the author of the Rand report which emanated from my part of Ontario, Windsor, during the Ford strike. He came up with what has since that time been known as the Rand formula, which has been heralded in all corners of the world as probably one of the most progressive pieces of judicial decision-making that has ever been made in the field of labour-management relations. I hearken back to that decision and note that, among other things, it has this to say:
That we cannot draw back and try to reverse the whole progress of the last 100 years in labour-employer relations, that we must go through to a higher evolution of them must, I think, be accepted as axiomatic. On that assumption there are two fundamental views to be taken on the mode of bringing that progress about: either to leave it as the issue of economic war in ail its ferocity and waste or as the gradual rationalization of an area where interests are both common and conflicting. That we must have some sort of law or convention regarding these relations is inescapable:-
It seems to me that that formula derived by Judge Rand, which brought the Ford strike to an end and allowed the principle of compulsory checkoff, reasoned that if an individual were to work in a plant which was not a closed shop and
80018-13V2

June 10, 1977
Canada Labour Code
were to sustain the benefits derived from a contract negotiated by a particular union, he should not get a free ride, as it were, but should be required to pay part of the costs of the union by having the union dues checked off and paid to the union notwithstanding he is not a member.
It seems to me that to adopt the second part of the hon. member's bill today would be to throw that principle out. It would say that we are prepared to allow an individual who works for a particular employer, in a place where there is a union, to accept and receive all the benefits negotiated by the union and, in essence, pay nothing for them. I think that would be both inequitable and unfair and would be a regressive step which would take us not just to the position we were in in the late 1940's, when Mr. Justice Rand reached his decision, but indeed beyond that and lead us more into the confrontation type of negotiation which we have now.
The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) has made a very important contribution, but his comment I am unable to hear. Perhaps when I have finished he can pose a question to me and I will answer it, but in the interim might I be permitted to continue.
It seems to me the hon. member makes good sense when he speaks of right to work legislation. I would not want to be one to deny anyone the right to work. At the same time I would not want to be labelled as having a great deal of cynicism for organized labour. I see behind this kind of legislation a tremendous amount of cynicism. 1 see, in effect, the attachment of blame almost exclusively-though the hon. member says he is not trying to do this-to the organized labour movement for the ills of our economic system today.


Frank Oberle: That is not what I said.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I cannot buy that.


Frank Oberle: That is what you are saying.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The hon. member says that is what I am saying, and he has been quite eloquent in saying that he did not say that. But if one goes beyond what he says he is saying to what he is trying to get us to adopt today, one finds that is exactly what he is saying, though he protests very much that it is not.
I think the principles laid down in the Rand decision are sound and should continue to be adopted and, indeed, be built upon. I think that is what we are talking about in terms of the 14 points which the labour minister brought forward regarding what he would like to see done by labour and management in this country. He, like the hon. member, is agreed that we want to get away from and have less of the confrontation type negotiations than we have had in the past. He, like the hon. member, wants to ensure that organized labour has a voice and is represented. But I suggest to the hon. member that it is open to unorganized labour to organize. It is open to them to form groups of their own and attach themselves to what are currently known and recognized as labour unions. If they choose not to, perhaps they may do so at their peril; but no one imposes
on them an obligation to do so or not to do so. I see that also as a right that should be protected by members here.
I have become very concerned about where we are and what the labour unions have requested we do in order to achieve what we have been talking about. I believe one of my colleagues may be speaking about the Woods task force on labour relations of 1966. It seems to me that following that task force certain recommendations were made which were not adopted because they went too far to deny the rights of unions and members of unions to belong to labour organizations and to look for union security.
I have never been one to argue that we should have total security, that we should not have the possibility of decertification. But I ask the hon. member to consider that the democratic process is alive and well not only in this institution but surely in labour unions as well. The right still exists within those unions to elect an executive and, yes, a labour bureaucracy of the kind described by my hon. friend. If members of those unions make the determination that they are not adequately represented by their leaders, by their executive or bureaucrats, have they not the right to put them out? Have they indeed not done that? Do we not all recognize examples where that has been done over the last few years?
Are we to presume that we should sit here and disallow them that right as well, to say to them that the system obviously cannot work and that we are not going to give it a chance to work, that instead we want to pass this kind of legislation to protect them from themselves? I do not think that we should be presuming to pass that kind of legislation.


Frank Oberle: Look around and see what the Postmaster General is saying about the system working.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The hon. member discusses the situation in the Post Office and asks me to consider what the Postmaster General is saying. I suggest to him that the Postmaster General has said that we have to put an end to confrontation; that confrontation type negotiations are not the route to go. I do not think I am saying anything to the contrary today. Neither do I think the bill put forward by the hon. member will assist that purpose. All it will do is to so weaken the ability of the work force as to preclude its being able to negotiate from any position of strength. It is abundantly clear that when the position of either labour or management is so increased in strength as to make the other side impotent, all that results is trouble in the labour force and nothing is obtained from that.
What we have to look for, is equity, and I submit that what we have now is approaching that. It is not entirely that; there are a lot of improvements which have to be made. As I said before, one has to look at the 14 point program put forward by the labour minister to see what it is we on this side of the House are supporting and trying to do better to improve the labour situation. This is our answer; this is our mandate to solve that problem. It is also a statement of our recognition that there is a problem. No one is turning a blind eye. I suppose, in short, that what we are saying is that this bill is not the way to answer the problem.

June 10, 1977

With respect to the practice in other jurisdictions, it is true that there are jurisdictions which are adopting right to work legislation. In the United States, for instance, in the current legislation respecting rights of employees, the national labour relations act, section 7 provides:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join or assist labour organizations; to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of the above activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labour organization as a condition of employment. ..
The same holds true for the U.S. railway labour act and the Norris-Laguardia act.
There have been pieces of legislation passed in terms of controls on union coercion and discrimination. That particular legislation is to prohibit the situation where unions have demanded of employers that they fire labourers who fail to pay their union dues. At the same time the legislation has also protected the labourers to ensure that unions, in an effort to get rid of particular employees, should not impose on them certain labour dues or certain entrance requirements in excess of the usual requirements. In effect, that would provide some kind of reverse discrimination.
I am certain there are others who would like to join in this debate this afternoon, and I am sure they have matters which will add to the problem. The matter I would like to highlight today is that, in my view, this legislation signals a difficulty we all recognize, and would be a regressive piece of legislation because of the damage it would do to the principles enunciated by Mr. Rand when he settled the Ford strike. Those principles, which are recognized by all labour management forums, nationally and internationally, have indicated that this is a formula which should not be toyed with; is something which should be held in high regard; and should be seen by us as a signpost of the hope we are working toward, and that is labour-management peace.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) will not be surprised at my saying that I do not support his bill. I am afraid I cannot even indulge in the nicety that is sometimes suggested in private members' hour about a member having rendered a service by bringing the matter before us. As far as I am concerned, the sooner we can get rid of this bill, the better.


John Raymond Ellis: Stanley, that is 21 minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact, I do not think hon. members need to talk the bill out. I would be quite happy for it to come to a vote and find out what the House thinks about this measure.


Frank Oberle: Call in the members.
Canada Labour Code


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), who is the labour spokesman for the Progressive Conservative party, will have a few words to say and will let us know where he stands on this issue.
As the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Daudlin) has just said in his speech, which I endorse whole-heartedly, it took labour a long while to win the right to collective bargaining. If collective bargaining means anything, it includes the right to reach agreement on certain matters.


An hon. Member:: It includes the right to intimidate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Canada Labour Code enshrines that right in giving to the parties to collective bargaining-labour on one side and management on the other-the right to draw up certain kinds of agreements. One of those is a closed shop, another is a union shop, there are maintenance and memberhip provisions, and the new development in our generation is the Rand formula to which the previous speaker has referred. It is clear that all of this is all voluntary.
Unions are not required by law to make any of these provisions or any of these agreements, but these are the options which are open to them. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River would take away one of those options or one of those rights, and if he were to succeed in doing that, I suggest it would throw the whole business of employee-employer relationships into a tailspin. From my point of view, his comments on trade unions reveal a complete lack of understanding of how trade unions operate, just as I thought he was dreaming a bit when he told us about the virtues of those on the other side and what they do with their profits. The viewpoint of my hon. friend is that labour unions are bad and management is all good. I disagree. As I say, I would be quite happy if the motion for the second reading of this bill could come to a vote and we could get rid of it. To deny the right of a union on a voluntary basis, if it can get agreement with management, to get whatever kind of contract can be worked out, is a thoroughly regressive step.
As for the second part of the bill, which has to do with the payment of dues, the hon. member who has just taken his seat has gone into that at some length in his discussion of the formula produced by Mr. Justice Rand. I submit it makes sense that those who benefit from what an organization does on their behalf should not be given a free ride.
I do not happen to approve of or support the government we have in Canada today. Therefore, does that mean I should be excused from paying taxes? Actually, there are benefits, which all of us enjoy, because there is government in a civilized society providing certain protections, benefits and so on. The fact that I disagree with that government does not give me the right not to pay taxes and not to pay my share of what that government does for the country as a whole. By the same token, those who get better wages, shorter hours and better working conditions, because of a union organization working on their behalf, should be required to pay their share. If they

June 10, 1977
Canada Labour Code
do not want to belong and if they do not want to be members, that is their right.
As to the suggestion of the hon. member a while ago that these members are forced to pay contributions to a certain political party, I hope he is intelligent enough to know that that statement is not correct. In this day and age when we are trying to move things forward in terms of employer-employee relationships, the hon. member has done a disservice by bringing in this bill.
In the course of the speech made by the hon. member for Kent-Essex, there was a question from this side of the House about the Post Office. That was supposed to flatten the argument made by the hon. member for Kent-Essex. As an aside I would like to make the point that one of the reasons there is so much difficulty in labour relations, with regard to the Post Office, is because the members of the postal unions have been unhappy that their labour relations are not governed by the Canada Labour Code. They come under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. They do not feel that legislation fits an industrial operation such as theirs. Thus, any suggestion that the troubles in the Post Office constitute a reflection on the Canada Labour Code is one which fails to take these facts into recognition.
The bill which has been put in this afternoon is not in the interests of improving labour relations in this country. I am glad 1 held back and let an hon. member from the other side speak first, because the position I take would be assumed in this House. It has been a pleasure to hear such a good statement on the position of trade unions by the hon. member for Kent-Essex, and I hope the House will reject this ill-advised bill in one way or another.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on the private bill introduced by my colleague and fellow member of my party, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), I want to speak quietly but to make some comments which will be of help in the debate taking place this afternoon.
First of all I have to say with reluctance, because the bill is introduced by a colleague of mine, that, as the labour critic in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I cannot agree with the bill. But, having said that, I think it is also fair to say that the bill represents a point of view which is, in many respects, increasing in many parts of our society, and I think it behooves everybody here not to take the attitude that this issue should not be debated but rather to ask why it is that an hon. member on this side of the House who, I happen to know, has business interests in the province of B.C., who employs workmen and has an excellent record of employment, feels compelled to introduce this bill and to open this debate in the Chamber this afternoon. It is no use saying that the issue which my friend has raised by introducing the bill is not one that concerns people in the country, because it most certainly does.
My friend has made reference to certain studies and polls, and I can assure you that I have seen these studies and polls as

well. I have also had occasion to talk with strong trade union people who, reacting out of frustration and anger, sometimes to situations within their particular unions, have said that maybe union leaders would be better union leaders if there were no closed shop. The reason that I am saying there is no use avoiding the issue is that the issue is there, it is in the country. I am saying this as the labour critic in the official opposition.
I am saying that I cannot support the bill for several reasons. First of all, in the vast majority of unions in this country democracy functions, and it functions well. The strike record that we had had in Canada,-which has improved recently-was extremely serious 18 months ago. I see some hon. members on the government side nodding in agreement. It may very well be serious again, but I am not sure, and I am not persuaded from anything that I have learned that this bill would necessarily eliminate strikes in this country or eliminate the incidence of strikes.
The problems that have created much of the industrial strife in this country have little to do with the so-called right to work laws. They have to do with a number of other things. In 1975 they had to do with the fact that, if you take a look at the figures, labour's share of the gross national product was declining, wage demands were increasing because costs were increasing, and any good labour leader, including Mr. Morris of the CLC, will be quick to point out that one of the reasons why costs were going up was that inflation was taking hold and, as Mr. Morris has said repeatedly, the blame for that lay very much in this Chamber because the government was printing money beyond productivity and inducing a good deal of domestic inflation.
When we look at the situation in the management-labour world in this country and when we take the time to speak with and listen to both sides, we find an amazing amount of common sense, if you can put these people in some room where their common sense statements will not be reported by the media. The average labour leader in this country lives in a highly political and sometimes very difficult world within his or her own union, and the long history in this country of a militant adversary system has made it extremely difficult for many labour leaders to be what I could call "reasonable" because they are afraid of being attacked by their own rank and file as not being tough with the boss.
On the other side of the coin is the fact that a good many people in management have, for too long, dealt at arm's length with trade union representatives, trade union leaders, or through people who are hired to do all the negotiating, and often management has been too far removed from the bargaining table.
I suppose that another cause of some of the strife has been that expectations in this country have, for some time, run ahead of the reality of the situation, although having said that I recognized that there are some people who believe there is no limit and that increases on an annual basis can go on forever. Let me assure all hon. members that the most sensible and responsible people within the trade union movement today
June 10, 1977

know that that is not so, and that a great deal of their concern now is not just in trying to scramble to keep up with inflation, although that is very important, it is also the very serious concern as to whether or not our industrial society will produce enough jobs for their fellow workers and for the sons and daughters of all of us.
Some reference has been made to the situation in European countries. I think it is fair to point out that in one of the countries in Europe where they have a high degree of unionism-at least as high as our own, or perhaps a little more- that is in West Germany-there is no compulsory, manadato-ry, union membership. But we have to remember, when we look at the situation in Europe, just as we have to do in other things that are being talked about today, including co-determination, industrial democracy, workers' councils, and all that sort of thing, that it is not easy to transplant a system which may work in another milieu and with another cultural background into our industrial milieu, because our tradition has been very different.
Lastly, I want to emphasize, because it has to be remembered, that law makers have an obligation not to just work out on a theoretical basis what they believe would necessarily be the best of all possible worlds for all possible people. You cannot pass laws that will create so much strife and antagonism that the social damage done as a result of those laws exceeds any benevolent objective that the law makers may have.
I say bluntly that if this House should decide to impose so-called right to work laws across the boards on the parts of organized labour which lie within the federal jurisdiction, it would be taken as an attack on union security by every trade union person in this country.
1 do not need to remind hon. members that within the organized trade union movement in this country there are approximately 3.2 million people. I ask the House also to remember that those are just the men or women who work in the force and belong to trade unions, and that the trade union family is much larger than that. That family is composed of the spouses, the children and the parents of those people, and I can assure hon. members that 3.2 million trade union members in this country and their families do not consider themselves undemocratic or somehow alien to the civil traditions of our society.
In closing I want to come back to my opening point and say that 1 hope all hon. members will recognize that my colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River, has done this House a service by bringing this bill here, because there is a reason it has been introduced. The reason is that many people are demanding this kind of legislation. That is a warning to us.
It is a warning to management, and it is a warning to the trade union movement. There is no part of the Civil community, in which we have so much pride in Canada, that can very long withstand the scrutiny of public opinion if the perception should grow-and if it should become solidified-that democ-
Canada Labour Code
racy is not working within it. The same applies to the trade union movement if the public should begin to believe that the industrial relations system of our country is not working-in fact, even worse, if the public decides it is working against the public interest-then there is no question that the pressure upon all of us in this Chamber to pass laws to do something about it will increase.
I want to thank the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River for introducing this bill and initiating this debate. I want to thank other hon. members for taking part. I hope that when I say-regretfully, because the hon. member is a colleague of mine-i cannot support the bill, all hon. members will, after listening to my remarks, understand the reasons for that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roger Young (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, nearing the end of the day and entering the debate as I do at this moment,
I must say that I have had the benefit of listening to the previous speakers, and I say very sincerely that I enjoyed that benefit.
When I gave my maiden speech in this House a couple of years ago, I followed the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). We did not entirely agree on principle or on specifics at that time, but I have always appreciated his wisdom, his intellect and, by and large, the soundness of his judgment, even at the times when I have disagreed with him. I think I can say on his behalf that he spoke this afternoon probably with some reluctance because he spoke in opposition to a bill proposed by one of the backbench members of his own party. However, he spoke with such cogency and was so lucid in his remarks that there is little else to be said.
This afternoon I also find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I do not always agree with him, but today he spoke very appropriately.
I do not mean to condemn the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), but I too disagree with the specifics of the bill, and I would fear the result which would be brought upon the Canadian scene.
The hon. member for Vancouver South said he was glad the bill was brought forward for debate this afternoon, and I agree. He spoke of the growing feeling in the country that perhaps a change in labour law legislation is needed. I think it is true that there are people who feel that there has been too much confrontation and too much economic disruption and that we are all involved in this. However, as the things in which we are involved grow more numerous, sometimes we forget some of the lessons of history, and we are so wrapped up in the problems we have today that we forget the set of facts which originally gave rise to the type of labour code we have today, to the Rand formula, and to the system we now operate under. It may not be a perfect system. Few things are ever perfect. They may look that way on the surface, but there is a point where, because of human fallibility, they begin to break down.

June 10, 1977
Canada Labour Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a brief moment to raise a question of privilege. This morning the House was good enough to endorse a motion which I offered congratulating the eight hon. members who were elected 20 years ago today and who have been here during that period of time. Because of the way my motion was actually worded, referring to those who were elected the first time 20 years ago today, I should have included at least one other hon. member who was first elected that day. I suppose the reason I did not include him this morning was that
he has not been here all the 20 years in between, but we congratulate him as well, and I should like to pay tribute as well to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on still being with us, even if he had a couple of terms out after having been first elected 20 years ago today. If there are any others, I include them as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to the order made Monday, May 30, 1977.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Monday, June 13, 1977