1980-07-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, it was stated in today's edition of The Globe and Mail that over the weekend in Winnipeg, at the Liberal party policy convention, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) announced that his government is seriously considering imposing an energy tax on the export of surplus electrical energy to the United States.
There is no question that the imposition of such a tax would hit hardest at Ontario and Quebec. In view of the minister's announcement, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources make a statement on motions outlining the government's position with regard to the possible imposition of such a tax.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


LIBERAL CONVENTION
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity following the tragic event which occurred yesterday in Winnipeg. I move, seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert):
That this House offer its condolences and its sympathy to the bereaved family.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON POSSIBLE EXPORT TAX-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that last weekend the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) stated that the Liberal government is considering an export tax on all energy forms, including natural gas, to the United States, in view of the fact that this measure is obviously another attempt by his government to tax resource-based economies to pay for its own reckless and prodigal spending, and in view of the fact that an export tax on energy forms would have far-reaching implications for relations not only between the provinces and the federal government but also relations with the United States- especially since, for example, much of Ontario's electricity is generated from Pennsylvania coal-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has no conception of the problems and divisive results this proposal could produce, this House calls upon the minister to make a statement on motions in order to enable this House to obtain a clearer understanding of his lack of understanding of these implications, and to explain whether this measure represents the Liberal government's definition of sharing between the energetic economies of the regions and the spendthrift nature of his own government.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR MEDICAL REVIEW PANEL TO INVESTIGATE FITNESS OF BOXERS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the

July 7, 1980H
provisions of Standing Order 43 which I have discussed with representatives of both other parties: 1 hope my motion is seen to be non-partisan in nature.
In light of the tragic death this morning of one of Canada's fine boxers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the federal government immediately establish a medical review panel for the purpose of examining procedures currently used to determine the medical fitness of persons about to engage in amateur and professional boxing matches in Canada.
Mladam Speaker: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Who said "No"?


Madam Speaker:: Is the House in favour of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There was unanimous consent to propose this motion. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. The motion is carried.
Motion agreed to on division.


THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
That the House unanimously support a constitutional position enabling the Government of Canada to obtain greater economic powers so that all Canadians may benefit from equal opportunities and services.
Madam Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the presentation of such motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEVELOPMENT OF OIL SANDS PROJECTS IN ALBERTA-UNDER SO. 43 -MOTION EQUALITY OF GOVERN MENT SERVICES FOR ALL CANADIANS- MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) have all said recently that the federal government should maintain and even increase its economic powers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen):


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, whereas unemployment in Canada is rising to extremely serious proportions, combined with a zero-growth rate, rising deficits, insecure oil supplies and a severe shortage in our balance of payments, and whereas $12 billion to $14 billion is at present waiting to be invested in two massive oil sands projects, namely, Alsands and Imperial Oil in northeastern Alberta, creating 97 million man-hours of employment across Canada which will not only contribute $3.6 billion to Canada's balance of payments but will help secure Canada's future energy supplies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this House direct the present government to aggressively pursue the construction of the Alsands project at Fort McMurray and the Imperial Oil project at Cold Lake, and announce their approval by July 30, 1980.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUMMER OLYMPIC GAMES AT PETERBOROUGH, ONT.-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It concerns a matter which I am sure will receive the unanimous support of this House.
The Ontario Summer Olympic Games will open in Peterbor ough on August 22. In light of the necessary boycott of the international Olympics in Russia and the resulting disappointment to Canadian athletes, and in order that this Parliament may indicate its full support of Olympic competition in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell):
*
July 7, 1980

That should this Parliament still be in session on August 22, we would adjourn this House for a day in order that all members of Parliament from every province in Canada might attend the Ontario Summer Games in Peterborough on August 22 to show their support for the athletes of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to bring to the attention of this House a matter of grave national importance.
At the recent consistory or conclave of Liberals held in Winnipeg, not one single resolution concerning agriculture was either introduced or discussed. Knowing of the government party's reluctance to freedom of information, could it be that the agricultural resolutions or platform were discussed in camera? Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis):
That the neglected, ignored and forgotten Minister of Agriculture give us his party's complete agricultural policy in the next 30 seconds, as that is all the time apparently required.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Having been informed by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers that local post office management in Winnipeg intends once again to discontinue counter service and close postal station D, 930 Portage Avenue, as early as September, and since this cutback in postal services undoubtedly will cause both inconvenience and hardship for local residents and businesses, especially for senior citizens, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House call upon the Postmaster General to intervene on behalf of this local Winnipeg neighbourhood by assuring the continuation of counter service and by keeping postal station D open.
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Will he inform the House as to whether arrangements have now been completed for his meeting with Premier Lougheed; and, if so, would he give us the date and the location of that meeting?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am told that the suggestion was made of a meeting on the twenty-fourth of this month to be held in Ottawa, but I am not quite certain that that is confirmed as an agreement yet. I am flexible; I believe there is-


An hon. Member:: Did you say May 24?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: July 24. Did I not say July? I am told that a variety of places have been looked at, and various locations. This seems to be the one we are working on now.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is direct to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister will be aware that in addition to the end of July deadline there is also a deadline with respect to the projects of heavy oil production in northern Alberta.
One of these projects is estimated at a direct investment of $7 billion. The minister will be aware of estimates, published over the weekend, of the spin-off or multiplier effect of that particular project, indicating that over $9 billion would flow into the provinces of Ontario and Quebec as a direct result of the commencement of that project. First, will the minister confirm the accuracy, if he is able, of that $9 billion economic boost to Ontario and Quebec? Second, can he now give us his estimate of the cost of delay should that project, in the absence of an agreement, be put off one full year?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I cannot deny or confirm the estimates put forward by the individual companies at the present time. These are company estimates and as such they are put out as estimates and should be taken as such.
I want to indicate to the hon. member that he is also aware Petro-Canada and Alberta Gas have offered to get into a fourth tar sands project which is estimated at around $10

July 7, 1980
Oral Questions
billion. So the government is quite conscious of the great significance and great benefits for all parts of Canada of those projects. We hope an agreement is reached on oil pricing soon and that these projects will proceed.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, 1 am pleased the minister acknowledges the importance of the economic effect of this, because consistently he has blamed the provinces for the failure of the start-up, whereas I am sure the minister will agree that in the absence of a pricing agreement no province or company will commence this very important construction.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


William Herbert Jarvis: Somebody asks, "Why not?" They certainly do not know the facts of life if they do not know why not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: The minister will have the information from his department and elsewhere as to the price per barrel at which commencement of these projects is viable. In that this is not confidential information, presumably, will he tell us at what price per barrel, according to the best information he has, these projects would be triggered in terms of their commencement?


Marc Lalonde: On the first part of the question, Madam Speaker, I should like to stress to the hon. member that the federal government met its commitments vis-a-vis the Alsands project I think about two years ago. It was the difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory arrangement among the companies concerned and the government of Alberta which delayed the projects during that period: it was not the federal government, as the federal government met all its commitments a good while ago to allow the projects to proceed.


An hon. Member:: Except pricing.


Marc Lalonde: We had a pricing agreement over the last two years and the companies were ready to proceed on that pricing agreement, but the government of Alberta chose to delay an agreement with those companies because it wanted to further pursue certain negotiations with the companies. I do not blame the province for that; I am just reciting the facts.


An hon. Member:: Some of them.


Marc Lalonde: As far as the question raised by the hon. member is concerned, I would say that obviously, again, the question as to what exact price would get those projects to proceed is a matter of argument. I can tell him the advice I have received is that those projects could proceed at a price well below the present international price.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The facts he alluded to in his reply a moment ago do not coincide
with the facts of the oil companies which have said they want to proceed with the plants.
My question is: does the minister accept absolutely no responsibility for the aggressive development of the tar sands? Is this not the policy of the minister's government? Will he not accept aggressively the pursuit of the tar sands, or is he really leaving this to Alberta, saying in effect that Alberta is running the energy policy of this country?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: First of all, Madam Speaker, I certainly would not agree with the interpretation by the hon. member. It is thanks to the very generous fiscal incentives provided by the federal government, particularly Liberal governments of the past, that we have been able to get the tar sands projects in operation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: However, it is being said that I would not want to take away some credit from the provincial governments as they have co-operated in the realization of these projects. Obviously, the provinces have control of these resources; they determine the rate of royalties and things like that, and they have received their share in the realization of those projects.
That is not to say the federal government has not been a major partner. As a matter of fact, if you look at the facts in terms of fiscal incentives and investments, you will find that the federal contribution on behalf of Canadian taxpayers all over Canada in the realization of these projects has been a very major factor.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Now that he has taken over the negotiations of an oil pricing agreement and obviously the responsibility for energy, mines and resources, will he pursue aggressively the development of synthetic crude in northeastern Alberta, particularly when Petro-Canada announced to the Alberta Energy Conservation Resources Board that by 1990 production of conventional crude in Alberta from existing pools will decline to 32 per cent of the present levels, and that by the year 2000 conventional crude production in Alberta will have declined to 10 per cent of present production?
Will the Prime Minister pursue aggressively the development of the tar sands industry in northeastern Alberta?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the answer given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to that question is the same answer which I would give, and that the minister is still responsible for the development of energy policy.
July 7, 1980


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On the weekend, in Winnipeg, the Prime Minister said, with regard to the provinces, they are creating a "garrison mentality" in Canada and they are "creating fences to keep" Canadians "apart".
Considering that right after the referendum, the vast majority of Canadian political leaders, including the premiers, indicated a co-operative attitude toward dealing quickly and seriously with constitutional reform, why is the Prime Minister now jeopardizing this very process by using such confronta-tionist language?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I was not at that point talking about the constitutional discussions; I was talking about the importance of preserving in Canada a strong economic union. The Leader of the New Democratic Party is certainly aware that there are certain practices in Canada which would not even be permitted in the European Common Market, in terms of mobility of labour and of capital. I would think I would have the support of at least his party on that subject.
Oral Questions


Mr. Waddell:: With all the power in your hands.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that on the substance the Leader of the New Democratic Party agrees with me. That is sufficient, and if he is offended at my rhetoric, then 1 apologize to him.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the point is-it is a serious point-not whether we happen to agree or disagree on rhetoric, but that a major first ministers' conference will take place for four days. I would like to ask the Prime Minister, in that context, since fully 80 per cent of the premiers-that is, eight of the ten premiers-since the referendum have had nothing but positive remarks to make about this process, does the Prime Minister not think that it would be appropriate for him to rise to their level, instead of descending to the level of the one or two premiers who have had confrontationist things to say about the process?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am always prepared to accept lessons in moderation from the Leader of the New Democratic Party and 1 accept the reproach.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the point at hand is not the substance of the matter of the negotiation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: There is the arrogant shrug once again, Madam Speaker. Why we have a problem with the majority of the premiers who represent all parties-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot allow a long preamble by the hon. member for Oshawa, no more than I can allow it by other hon. members.


John Edward Broadbent: Since we are agreed, along with the Prime Minister and many people in the country, to speedy change on the constitution, would the Prime Minister not agree that it is essential to obtain speedy change and to take an attitude toward the leaders of the provinces which is civilized, decent and assumes the same good will which he claims to provide for himself?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would think that any member of this chamber would know that in the past several months and several years the rhetoric of many provincial politicians has been precisely of the kind for which the hon. member is reproaching this government. For months we have been witnessing the spectacle of provincial politicians saying that Ottawa was this or that Ottawa was that, that we were too centralized, that we were not giving enough powers to the provinces, and so on.
1 said it in this chamber in the Speech from the Throne, and 1 repeat again, that the case must be made for preserving the Canadian economic union strong.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He will be aware that within the next two weeks the United Nations Human Rights Committee will be ruling on a possible violation of human rights by Canada when the case of Sandra Lovelace, a status Indian woman seeking equality, is considered by the United Nations.
Given that this is the first time Canada's record of human rights has ever had to be questioned by the United Nations, and given that this matter will be considered by that body within the next few days, will the Prime Minister show his government's commitment to human rights by immediately taking steps to remove section I2(l)(b) from the Indian Act, thereby giving Indian women equality before the law, and at the same time removing any condemnation of Canada by the United Nations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 am sure, Madam Speaker, that the hon. lady would want to put this question in context. She knows, of course, that for several years this government has been attempting to achieve that amendment. The subtlety is that we do not want to impose a solution on the Indian people. We all recognize Indians as having a culture of their own and having a right to preserve that culture. I think the attempt of my government back in 1969 to not only delete that section but, perhaps, to abolish the Indian Act in its entirety was a lesson, for me at any rate, that it was not wise even to go in a progressive direction over the heads of the Indian leaders themselves.

July 7, 1980
Oral Questions
Discussions have been going on for, I would say, a couple of years on that very subject with the Indian leaders. The present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is in discussion with them. We indicated, I believe it was in the Speech from the Throne, that we would eventually have to act even if they were not all prepared to agree.
I am certainly in agreement with the indications of the hon. lady. Perhaps the case being decided at the United Nations will help persuade the Indian leaders themselves that they should be moving in this direction. But I am satisfied that our minister is trying to do it with their consent, rather than ride roughshod over some of their traditions.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, somewhere in the last few days I heard it stated that human rights are not negotiable. I presume that was with other people, other individuals, other organizations or with anyone in the whole Dominion of Canada. I presumed that was what the Prime Minister meant, that human rights are not negotiable, including the human rights of Indian women.
Since the Prime Minister is not prepared to move in this particular area of removing section 12(1 )(b) from the Indian Act, as the Clark government had indicated to the Indian leadership it was prepared to do, 1 ask him what will the explanation be that he asks the Canadian delegation to take to the World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women, which is taking place in Denmark next month, to explain the unwillingness of the Canadian government to come to grips with this issue.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I believe the preamble was very important to the question, because the hon. lady indicated a position which I believe is right in saying that human rights are not negotiable. Notwithstanding that, she knows that for at least ten years I have been trying to negotiate with the provinces their acceptance. At some point 1 suppose you have to act unilaterally. I am glad I would have the support of the party opposite in-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: You are hoist by your own petard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -acting unilaterally to impose human rights in a constitution if we cannot get agreement with the provinces. The process with the Indians is the same. The human right is as the lady stated, but we would prefer to do it with the Indians, as with the provinces, through persuasion and negotiation. That is what we have been attempting. But I accept the hon. lady's enjoiner to do it unilaterally at some point.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, just a very simple supplementary to the Prime Minister. How long is he prepared to make Indian women wait?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in the case of unilateral action on constitutional matters we have been waiting for 53
years. I think it is time to get along with the subject. I hope we will have the support of the hon. lady for that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You won't answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the case of the Indians, the former minister responsible tells me we have been discussing it with them for seven years. I would say perhaps one or two years more should be the limit.


INJURIES SUFFERED IN BOXING-MEASURES TO REGULATE SPORT
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour as the minister responsible for sport. The death of Cleveland Denny in Montreal today raises the death total to 330 boxers who have died since 1945 from injuries suffered in the boxing ring. The Denny death is reported to have followed the use of a type of blood doping.
My question to the minister-and 1 noted his reaction to the motion put under Standing Order 43 earlier today-is that if boxing is to be continued as a sport in Canada, what action does he propose to take in regulating the promotion of boxing with the view to eliminating fatalities such as this, and particularly the injuries suffered in the ring?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for what I consider to be a very important question. In doing so, I want to compliment the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain for the resolution that he put before the House today.
There is the difficult question of jurisdiction, not only on an interdepartmental basis but in relation to the division of jurisdiction in such a matter between the federal and provincial governments. I spoke to the distinguished Minister of National Health and Welfare on this matter before coming into the House today. We are certainly going to investigate with the Department of Justice and, if necessary, with provincial authorities, exactly where the jurisdiction lies.
In view of the tragic death of Mr. Denny, which is the latest in a series of unfortunate events in the ring, I think it is most appropriate that those authorities who have jurisdiction carry out, medically and in other ways, a careful review of the practices and the precautions that presently exist to see if they can in one way or in many ways be improved. If they cannot, then I think we must give very serious consideration, as Canadians, to how long we can allow this toll of human life in the ring to continue.
uly 7, 1980


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, since the lood doping seems to be an unfortunate factor in this matter, will address my supplementary question to the Minister of ational Health and Welfare.
Will the minister assure this House and the Canadian eople that the type of blood doping alleged to have been used this instance is not harmful to the user and that no harm an follow the combat that follows such a situation in the oxing ring?
Translation]


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and elfare):: Madam Speaker, as just mentioned by my colleague he minister of amateur sport, we both consulted this morning ur respective officials concerning the tragic death of Mr. enny. The specific question on the quantity of dope in the lood of boxers is part of the problem we would like to have ooked into. If I understand current procedures correctly, a edical examination on the eve of a fight is the only require-ent at this time. We are not sure that is enough, which xplains the unanimous consent of the House, including the overnment, to having a task force look into procedures in the uture.
English]


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, y question is for the right hon. Prime Minister, who is aware hat an important conference on the constitution was held in olfville, Nova Scotia, last week. He is also aware that the eader of this party, two former ministers of the Conservative arty and three premiers of the four Atlantic provinces were here.
The Prime Minister was invited and three ministers of his overnment were invited but did not attend. I should like to sk the Prime Minister why no one from the Government of 'anada attended this important conference in the Atlantic provinces, which was an insult to the premiers of those provinces.
(1440)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am afraid I do not have an answer to that question. I understand the conference was some time last week-


John Edward Broadbent: It was Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -at a time when most ministers were either working here in the House or preparing for the convention on
Oral Questions
the weekend. The hon. member knows that the House has not been sitting very much the past two weeks because of the holidays, and I imagine that no minister was able to find himself free to be there. I realize it was an important conference, and I have a briefing note on it. I understand very important subjects were discussed, and in spite of the laughter from the NDP 1 will attempt-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, the NDP sure needs some publicity in the Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You got too much on the weekend.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, it is the Prime Minister and his party who got the adverse publicity in the Atlantic provinces. Since three premiers were there, and several politicians from the opposition parties, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is now ready to apologize to the organizers of the conference and to the three premiers for not being there or having someone go on his behalf.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that seems like a repetition of the same question. Maybe we have the same reason as Premier Peckford had for not being there. But I will find out.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, STATE OF VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA
Madam Speaker:: I would like at this point to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. S. J. Plowman, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Victoria, Australia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jim Schroder (Guelph):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the program announced in Yorkton last Thursday for cattle producers to help them cover the drought period, what does the federal government intend to do for the grain producers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the plans that the government has announced will not have anything extra over and above what crop insurance already allows for. Under the programs that we have for crop insurance, any crops that are insurable which farmers have not

July 7, 1980
Oral Questions
covered we have not made any other payment in the past. Under crop insurance it could cost the Government of Canada up to $400 million. Through the present programs we pay about $90 million in federal premiums and the producers pay about the same amount, and with the fund that has been built up it could cost us that much money and more. I might say that crop insurance is a federal program.
the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce-and with the tourist industry. Consultations with the provincial governments are taking place in connection with automobile gasoline subsidization, but not in connection with jet fuel. Efowever, 1 can assure the hon. member that full consultations are taking place within the federal government on the issue he has raised.


AIR CARRIERS FILLING UP WITH CANADIAN FUEL-PREVENTIVE MEASURES-EFFECT ON TOURISM
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the minister is aware, the low cost of aviation fuel in Canada is prompting many foreign-based air carriers to fill up their tanks to the limit in Canada, a practice which I believe is known as "tankering". It is my understanding that the government is considering ways of ending this giveaway.
Can the minister assure the House that if a program is implemented to stop "tankering", there will be no adverse affect on the tourist industry in Canada, keeping in mind the substantial deficit in Canada's international tourism account?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is surely aware that, in areas where the oil supplied to consumers, and particularly to airlines, is imported, we charge the actual price we pay for that oil when we sell it to airline companies. However, in other parts of the country, where domestic oil is sold, it is true that its price comprises an element of subsidy. The government is now in the process of looking into the matter, and I trust I shall soon be in a position to announce a decision on whether or not specific steps should be taken in that regard. As for the question of the hon. member concerning tourism, 1 should like to point out to him that subsidizing the cost of the fuel airlines use to fly to foreign points would result, in fact, in subsidizing tourism abroad. Therefore, any action that would lead to an increase in the cost of that fuel would tend to prevent, or decrease, tourism abroad and thus be of benefit to the Canadian tourist industry.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Small Businesses I would like to direct my supplementary to the same minister. Will the minister assure us that he will encourage the Minister of State for Small Businesses to talk to tourist industry officials so as to co-ordinate this government's tinkering with tankering in order to come up with a resolution of this problem?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that full consultations are taking place at the present time with the departments concerned-in particular,


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure the minister is aware of Public Works' evaluation of his department's virology laboratory in Hull. This was a report prepared by J. Douglas Wilson and Associates, in which it was reported that the "facilities are archaic, inefficient and hazardous" and "represent a danger to the environment".
I would like to ask the minister what direction he has taken or given to his department to rectify this dangerous situation. He knows that this laboratory imports diseases from around the world to evaluate them in the event they occur in Canada. 1 understand that it is a very hazardous situation there.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I have some knowledge of what the hon. member talks about. I do not know if it is on schedule or not, but a whole new facility is to be built. We do have a quarantine facility, which I am sure the hon. member knows is in the outlying area of Ottawa. This facility does a lot of the work that used to be done in those laboratories. We also have scheduled plans for new laboratories to be built in the province of Alberta that will also be doing some of this work. I would have to check and get further information to be brought up to date about this in order to give the hon. member a more accurate answer to his question.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I appreciate the minister's answer, Madam Speaker. I can tell him that as I understand it, it will be five years before any replacement can be built. In the meantime, and again to quote from the same report, "The possibility of disease transmission to humans is dangerously high". I understand, as well, that immediately adjacent to the laboratory is a children's playground. Therefore, can I have the minister's assurances that he will delay no further in checking into this situation to see if, indeed, something should be done quickly?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member can be given that assurance. The latest report that I saw some weeks ago showed that there could not be transfer of any disease to anyone in the immediate vicinity. Unless something has changed since that time-and I would not be aware of it-I would be as concerned as he is and probably even more alarmed than he is about it.
July 7, 1980


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It arises out of the government's decision, without comment, to allow the subsidy to Canadian shipbuilders to lapse on July 1. I wonder if the minister could tell us when the proposed comparable program of assistance might be completed and announced, so that Canadian shipyards can pursue investigation of contracts with offshore builders.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the program did not lapse entirely. The subsidy at the 20 per cent level went back to the former 9 per cent level. I am advised that most of the Canadian shipyards have relatively full order books to build ships that were eligible for the 20 per cent subsidy. This will give us time to actively and urgently carry out consultations with the industry in order to design a new cost-effective program that will be useful to the industry, the regions where the shipyards are found and the entire Canadian economy.


J. Michael Forrestall: It is quite true that the 9 per cent subsidy does remain, and I accept that, but of course it is useless. The indication from the Minister of Transport and other government spokesmen is that the replacement program will be comparable with the 20 per cent arrangement in place up until the end of June.
I have one further supplementary: if this comparable program is imminent some time this fall-and the minister suggests there is some urgency attached to it-would it not have been in the best interests of shipyard employees, the 40,000 people involved directly or indirectly, to have left in place the 20 per cent subsidy until such time as the government was prepared to announce a substitute program?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That is a matter of debate; one could have different points of view on it. I believe it is a fact that most, if not all, Canadian shipyards have relatively full order books providing them with work until 1982, in some cases, and in others well into 1981, enabling us to consider in cabinet, on the basis of consultation with the industry, a program carrying forward what has already been accomplished but in a way which would be recognized as being cost-effective and in the best interests of the industry, its workers and the entire economy.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport. Low stocks of grain on
Oral Questions
the prairies this year have resulted in elevators on the CN line to Churchill holding insufficient grain to meet the needs of the port of Churchill.
Since the Hall commission report recommended three years ago that grain be transferred from the CP and the CN line where possible, will the minister now implement that strategy to make sure there is enough grain supplied to meet the needs of the port of Churchill?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member is aware that on Friday the Canadian Wheat Board made a very important announcement. It is in three parts. It opens all quotas to all CN lines. It allows producers on CP lines to deliver to CN points without quotas. There is also a Canadian Wheat Board program of trucking from elevators on CP to elevators on CN. So this is an effort to remedy the situation which presently confronts the port of Churchill.
The subject of promoting interchange between CN and CP facilities has been debated before. It is being debated again under the chairmanship, if you wish, of Dr. Horner, the grain co-ordinator, and the two railways would apparently be ready now to make accommodations.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I am aware of the announcement of the Wheat Board, Madam Speaker. But that statement pointed out the problem, rather than the answer. The point is this: since no interchange is presently in place there is insufficient wheat for the CN line and the farmer has no means of making a profit. What does the minister intend to do about this? It is not enough to say the Wheat Board has made an announcement. Hall made his recommendation three years ago: do something now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: As to the importance of the interchange, I said very clearly that there had been a debate on the subject, how important it is, and so on. But I thought I was very specific in saying that Dr. Horner is conducting negotiations between the two railways at the present time. I went further and indicated that the atmosphere at these negotiations is very good.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, in the absence, due to illness, of the Minister of Veterans Affairs I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister relating to veterans legislation which was introduced by our government in Bill C-28.
The right hon. gentleman will know that Wednesday is an allotted day for the official opposition. It is a day which we would be prepared to postpone until the fall if there were
2592

July 7, 1980
Oral Questions
all-party agreement to pass the veterans legislation in all its stages on that day, Wednesday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I have consulted with representatives of the New Democratic Party. The parties on this side of the House are prepared to proceed in that way-all-stage passage of the veterans legislation on Wednesday of this week. Would the Prime Minister tell us whether the legislation is ready, and whether the government is prepared to introduce it on Wednesday for passage through all stages?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, 1 did not quite understand the offer made by the Leader of the official Opposition. Does he wish to postpone the opposition day or sacrifice it for the benefit of veterans? I wonder about the authenticity of his generosity. In any event, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has insisted several times in the House that this bill be introduced in Parliament as soon as possible, especially before the summer recess. And on every occasion the Minister of Veterans Affairs gave him the assurance that the government wanted to have this legislation prepared, introduced and passed as quickly as possible. So I will offer the Leader of the Opposition the same assurance that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has always offered the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that is, we will do everything necessary so that the appropriate piece of legislation will be brought before Parliament in the very near future. I thank in advance the opposition parties for their offer to allow us to have it passed as quickly as possible, that is, in less than one day.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister has talked his way around the question.

I indicated to him that this party is prepared to postpone an allotted day which is ours by right so that the veterans of Canada need wait no longer for legislation which was prepared, printed and ready for passage under our government and which should be ready under this government. With the agreement of the New Democratic Party, I have been able to offer him an assurance that the bill will be passed through all stages on Wednesday.

My question for the government is as follows: Is the legislation which our government had prepared now ready with the Liberal government and, if so, is the government prepared to introduce it this Wednesday so that Parliament can pass at all stages this important piece of legislation for the veterans of Canada?


Yvon Pinard: I would have liked to have heard the Leader of the Opposition say he was prepared to give up the day, not postpone it. That, of course, would be real generosity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: In any case, this legislation is under preparation and I am willing, in the name of the government, to introduce it next Wednesday if I have the agreement of the opposition parties to dispose of it in one day. I would appreciate it, though if the Leader of the Opposition would be serious and give up the allotted day he is talking about.


Charles Joseph Clark: Just so we are clear about this, we on this side were so prepared to give the veterans of Canada their legislation that a bill was on the order paper, ready for debate and passage, when the party opposite brought our government down. That was our priority. Knowing the pressures under which Parliament sits during the summer, we are now prepared to postpone until the fall an allotted day, this Wednesday-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Leader of the Opposition have a further question?


Charles Joseph Clark: I have many, Madam Speaker. The minister, in delaying further the passage of this legislation, spoke about next Wednesday: "this Wednesday", he is now saying. So he is accepting our offer to introduce the bill that day and to have the allotted day postponed until the fall; is that correct?


Yvon Pinard: I always had the impression during the previous government that they were more interested in income tax credit on mortgages than in veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I made myself very clear. I said that on Wednesday we would be introducing the bill in question and that the opposition parties had assured us we could put it through all stages. That is what we shall do this week, and I said to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that I was disappointed he kept asking that the day allotted to the Progressive Conservative Party be postponed rather than given to the House to enable us to look after veterans. So this is very clear, Madam Speaker. We shall be introducing the bill on Wednesday. The opposition parties have assured us that we would deal with the bill through all stages and, in my opinion, it is regrettable that the Leader of the Opposition would not change his mind and still insist he wants the allotted day postponed instead of giving it for the benefit of war veterans.
July 7, 1980


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Bruce Lonsdale (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Given the questionable attitude of the Ontario government in the matter of the $35 GIS pension increase recently unanimously approved by the House, can the minister inform the House of any action she has taken or intends to take to ensure that this increase is not misused by changes in the comforts allowances paid to persons in nursing homes or other institutions, and can she tell the House what she plans to do to make sure that this money goes directly to the senior citizens who need it desperately?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, very unfortunately, our direct power is limited, although that is not to say non-existent. The only thing we could have done would have been to exempt from the increase pensioners living in institutions, anticipating negative attitudes in some provinces. We did not do that, and I am still hopeful that the government of Ontario, whatever the strange language of Mr. Norton and Mr. Miller, will pass on the full $35. I sent a telex again on Wednesday of last week to Mr. Norton asking if, yes or no, the $35 will be passed on to seniors, but unfortunately I have not yet received an answer.


REPORTED TAX ON PRODUCTION OF GASOHOL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In statements made by him at the weekend he mentioned that he was considering a tax on the Minnedosa plant for the production of gasohol. We on the prairies believe that gasohol is a viable fuel alternative. Is the federal government planning any additional taxation on the production of gasohol at this time?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 have not seen the report to which the hon. member refers, but I would be very happy to give him the assurance that we are not considering any tax on the production of gasohol. This is the first time I have heard about this. This matter has never been brought to my attention even for consideration, so I do not know where the report would have come from.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he has recommended to his cabinet colleagues that the surety bond, especially for co-ops and farmers who want to get into the production of gasohol, be removed or at least reduced
Privilege-Mr. Gamble
substantially so that co-ops and small farmer groups can in fact get into the production of gasohol, not at a later date but within this same crop year.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am glad to see that the hon. member is talking about helping rather than hindering the development of gasohol production. I can tell him that indeed this is a matter I am considering, but I have not yet reached the stage of making a specific recommendation to cabinet. However, in the process of a general review on energy which we are carrying on at the present time, this very subject is being examined.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment or, in his absence, his parliamentary secretary. Recently, the government of the province of Ontario established certain pollution control standards which Inco must meet in the battle against acid rain. However, the June, 1980, press release regarding the report of the IJC states that the province of Ontario itself has failed to meet deadlines for complying with air pollution control objectives in the Sarnia-Port Huron area and in the Windsor-Detroit area, and that S02 emissions have actually increased. Locally, the Lambton Industrial Society has actually reduced S02 emissions from industry.
Will the minister or the parliamentary secretary confirm that the province of Ontario is taking steps to meet these standards and, in particular, require the hydro-generating station in Lambton County to take the action necessary to reduce S02 emissions?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I will take the question as notice.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, when the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) introduced his motion under Standing Order 43, I very clearly and in a loud and audible voice indicated that I was opposed to the motion.


Mr. Cousineau:: You were not even here.


John Albert Gamble: The circumstances which followed my opposition to that motion were as follows. Your Honour gave no recognition of having heard me, which might well be a consequence of simply not having heard me. Your Honour then took

July 7, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Gamble
some instructions from an officer of the House and read the written motion, after which I once again in a clear and audible fashion indicated that I was opposed to the motion. After further consultation with an officer of the House, Madam Speaker, you then departed from the regular practice which you have followed since I have been in the House and since you have acted as Speaker.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: You are challenging the Chair.


John Albert Gamble: Having concluded that you interpreted that there were more yeas than nays with regard to the motion, Your Honour concluded that the motion had indeed passed. This is not the first such circumstance. In the past, after having asked for a voice call on a first reading of a Standing Order 43 motion and having heard a negative response upon reading the motion, Your Honour has decided that the motion indeed had been lost. What I fear you have done, Madam Speaker, is changed the meaning and interpreted differently the words of Standing Order 43, which now should read: "A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made so long as there are no more than four negative opposition voices to that motion".
What concerns me is exactly what is transpiring. There is no doubt but that each individual member of Parliament has the right, in dealing with a motion under Standing Order 43, to indicate clearly whether he is opposed or whether he supports the motion.
In this case we have a circumstance in which clearly under the criminal law of Canada this Parliament has ample jurisdiction to prohibit professional boxing in Canada; but when it comes to regulating for health reasons the manner in which a boxing match may take place, one should have regard to the various doubts which are expressed by the law officers of both the minister responsible for amateur sport and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). There is no clearly defined decision which has yet been rendered as to whether this matter is within the purview of the Government of Canada. It is, however, an illustration of a mad precipitation of regulation by this House without knowing whether it is a matter which should indeed be dealt with by the provinces.
I submit that just because a member stands in his place in making a motion under Standing Order 43 and indicates that he may have spoken to other members of other parties, does not mean that all members of this House agree. That, unfortunately, may well be the inclination to which Your Honour is drawn when you hear those opening words.
There is a member of the government who regularly takes it upon himself to say "no" to a great number of motions which are brought under Standing Order 43. Madam Speaker, I think that one might well cast one's eye across other benches on this side of the House in order to determine whether, at first instance, there are some who are opposed to a motion which may, at first blush, appear to have the consent of all members of the House. The essential issue is whether, having failed to hear a negative response, we are now to interpret your ruling to mean that so long as there is not a greater number of
members opposed than five, the motion will be put again, and if five members do not rise to challenge your ruling the motion is passed by unanimous consent.
I now go on to deal with an additional matter. If indeed the motion is to be passed under Standing Order 43, does it matter whether it is at the first reading of the motion by a member of the House when it is determined whether there is unanimous consent, or is it when the motion is handed to you, Madam Speaker, to be read that it is determined that it is unanimously passed? I submit that it is on both occasions. When you read the motion which is presented to you in writing, if you fail to receive unanimous consent, then the motion cannot pass under Standing Order 43.


Madam Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for the notice he gave me during the question period that he would raise this matter as a question of privilege, but I must tell him that the Chair is the only one competent to determine whether or not nays are heard in the House. In this particular instance, I asked whether there was unanimous consent for this motion. I did not hear-I repeat that I did not hear-any nays from either side of the House. May I just say, for the information of hon. members, that I listen with my ears rather than with my eyes. I think hon. members might have noticed that often I look at the floor in order to concentrate better and to hear whether or not there are any nays, whether they come from one side of the House or the other. I do that usually because sometimes there is a lot of noise in the House and it is difficult for me to hear any nays.
The hon. member says he had said nays at the time I asked whether the House would give unanimous consent to have this motion put to the House. I did not hear him. When I did put the motion to the House, I heard a nay. It is at that point that I asked for the advice of the Clerk of the House in order to ascertain the procedure. Therefore, I followed the regular course in the case of motions under Standing Order 43. The hon. member would have had another chance at that point, because I asked the House whether it gave consent to the motion. Having heard some hon. members on this side say nay, I asked for yeas and I heard some yeas and then some nays. I said I felt the yeas had it and the motion was carried at that point. The hon. member could then have used some procedure in order to make a point concerning this motion.
So I have to tell the hon. member that I feel I have followed the normal procedure. I am the only one competent to hear the nays in this House. There might have been some confusion, I do not deny that, but the fact is that on the first instance I heard no nays and on the second instance I heard nays, and then I proceeded to ask for the yeas and nays. I have heard the hon. member on this question of privilege but I think he will admit that I followed the regular procedure.
July 7, 1980


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order with respect to the business of the House. I wonder if it could be made very clear as to what the intention is for Wednesday. I welcomed the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), but to me there is still some doubt. Is it now clear that the bill respecting veterans will be brought in on Wednesday provided that there is agreement to put it through all stages, whether or not the Conservative opposition day is given up for that purpose?


Yvon Pinard: The hon. member does not miss a thing. [English]


Some hon. Members:: We did not hear.


Yvon Pinard: My answer to the hon. member's question was "Yes".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I gave notice earlier at the conclusion of the question period. As some hon. members will have noted, a number of members on this side of the House in this party walked out prematurely immediately prior to the conclusion of the question period. The reason for this and the reason I raise this question of privilege is to express what has been a concern, which has been growing over the course of recent question periods, about the conduct of the question period in the recognition of government members by Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: The reason that this affects the privileges of all members of the House, and in particular of members of the opposition, is that-could I have some order from the opposite side, Madam Speaker? Today in the House there were at least three government members who were recognized on questions which basically-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: -gave ministers of the Crown opportunities to make announcements. I submit, with respect, that that is an abuse of the process of this House and of the privileges of members of this House. The only opportunity that we as members of the opposition have, in many instances, to have access to cabinet ministers is through the forum of the question period. You, Madam Speaker, will be aware of the fact that the number of questions which have been accorded to
Privilege-Mr. S. Robinson
government members in this Parliament is significantly greater than the number of questions which were accorded by your predecessor.
I note also that there appears to be a practice developing by you, Madam Speaker, of recognizing government members on a question at the conclusion of each question period, of recognizing government members for perhaps two or three questions in addition. We have this opportunity only to pose questions to cabinet ministers, and I suggest, with respect, that there must be a change in this practice if we are to be able to perform our jobs as members of Parliament on behalf of our constituents, particularly as members of the opposition to be able to ask the kinds of questions which should be asked of ministers of the Crown.
I should like to say in conclusion that it is an abuse for members of the government to take this opportunity to set up a cabinet minister to give an answer to a question which in some cases is either being read or is an announcement made by that cabinet minister.
So I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will review the record of your predecessor in this matter. I hope that you will perhaps recognize, more than you have in the past-I say this with respect-the critical importance of the question period to the opposition, that you will recognize that members of the government have many more opportunities, in their caucus and elsewhere, to raise these kinds of concerns, and that ministers of the Crown have many other opportunities to make the kinds of announcements which are made in response to set-up questions by government members.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, it had not been my intention to rise because I am well aware that you are able to defend yourself, but since a motive was imputed by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) to members on this side, I should like to remind him that Liberal members have the same rights in this chamber as all other hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: I resent the tone used by the hon. member for Burnaby. I sat in this House during the Thirtieth Parliament and I noted that Mr. Speaker Jerome varied from day to day, as you do, Madam Speaker, the number of people he recognized from each party. I remember that at one point six members on this side of the House were recognized on a particular day-this was a couple of years ago-and there were no objections at the time. I have looked around and I have seen a number of members on our side wishing to ask questions, yet only one or two of them are recognized. We do not complain; it is the luck of the draw. For the hon. member to say that members on this side of the House are setting up ministers only shows that obviously he is not listening to some of the questions asked, because some of the questions that are asked of ministers of the Crown are very pointed, as are the replies.

July 7, 1980
The Late Joe Sponarski
So I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his insinuation or his imputation of a motive, which I believe is unparliamentary.


Madam Speaker:: I should like to close the discussion because obviously no question of privilege is involved. I want to remind the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) that the Chair cannot get involved in the quality of a question nor in the intent of a question. If it appears to the hon. member that the question has been set up, this is a matter which must be dealt with between hon. members in the House, certainly not by the Chair.
As for the number of members on my right-hand side of the House that I have recognized, if I gave the hon. member the statistics on the numbers of questions which have been allowed by members on the government side, he would see that in fact they have had a chance to ask very few questions, although they have the same rights as other members of Parliament and have preoccupations concerning their constituents regarding which they like to have questions answered in the House.
Out of 15 or 16 questions today, Liberal members had three questions and no supplementaries, which they never have. I feel members on the government side have more opportunities to meet members of the government in order to discuss some of their matters. Therefore, I have followed the practice of my predecessors of never allowing them to ask supplementary questions. The hon. member must recognize that on some days members on the government side have had no questions at all; most of the time they are allowed two, sometimes three, and I am sorry to say that some days they might be allowed even more than three questions. The allocation of questions must be done fairly, but if some members have sacrificed questions, I do not think they are on my left-hand side of the House; on the contrary they are on the other side.


THE LATE JOE SPONARSKI
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point which is of a rather personal nature. 1 realize the House does not allow for this, but in this case I should like to refer to the tragic death yesterday of Mr. Joe Sponarski of Winnipeg. Mr. Sponarski was a resident of Portage la Prairie and I knew him over the last two federal elections because he was my opponent. I came to know and respect him as an opponent, and also to know his family and consider them as friends. It was with a sense of sadness that I learned this morning of his death yesterday. I should like to express my condolences, and I know members on all sides of the House would want to join with me in expressing sincere copdolences for the tragic bereavement of the Sponarski family.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to House business. Is it the intention of the government to introduce the bill on veterans' pensions later today and, if so, I want the minister to know now that he has our consent to do so. We would take the appropriate steps to change the order to allow that to be done, if he wants to do that. I wanted to ask him his intention and indicate our intention with respect to the veterans' bill.
The second matter concerns the saltfish bill which is second on the order of priorities for today. My understanding is that there may be some feeling in the House that we could proceed with that bill through Committee of the Whole today as it is rather short. I think that would be agreeable as well, if my friend would consider it at the outset.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the agreement made on the first point is very clear. 1 do not know if the Tory party will give up the day next Wednesday or only postpone it, but whatever they do, we will bring the veterans' bill in for discussion. It is understood among parties that it will be adopted through all stages next Wednesday. This bill will not be introduced today, but as soon as we are in a position to give copies of the bill to hon. members, we will do so. It could be at the end of the day tomorrow or early Wednesday morning.


Walter David Baker: Fair enough.


Yvon Pinard: On the second point, the Saltfish Act, it is true we have an agreement that, after a speech by each party today, we will go into Committee of the Whole and through third reading also.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, there are two points before us at the moment. With respect to the bill concerning veterans, I hardly need to repeat the offer I have made a good many times, in so far as this party is concerned, to put that bill through quickly. If it is introduced some time tomorrow or even Wednesday morning-so long as we have it by Wednesday-we will see to it that it gets through all stages that day.
With respect to Bill C-7, the saltfish bill, we are prepared for the second reading motion to be altered so that the bill goes into Committee of the Whole. Also we are prepared to see that bill through all stages today.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have just one point. Before calling Bill C-7, the Saltfish Act, there is an agreement that when Bill C-26 is called the bill will be referred to the appropriate standing committee of the House without any debate. I would like Bill C-26 to be called before Bill C-7.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I had intended to say that the bill second in priority today would be Bill C-7. Indeed it is the intention to deal with Bill C-26 very quickly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Madam Speaker, we are also prepared to deal with Bill C-26 at second reading without debate. We have
July 7, 1980

offered that agreement because it has been made clear to us that, when the bill goes before the standing committee, certain groups that wish to appear before that committee will be given the right to do so. It is on that basis that we are prepared to give second reading to Bill C-26 without debate today.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-610, to repeal the Small Loans Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, this bill has been agreed to by members on all sides of the House. Earlier last month there was a negotiation whereby this party and the New Democratic Party agreed with members of the government that we would pass a bill of this nature immediately through all stages. I suggest to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that we might be prepared to go through all readings of this bill right now.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 would have liked to be consulted first. I should like to look into the matter; I am not in a position to agree today.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following ques-questions will be answered today: Nos. 19, 353, 370, 639, 800 and 969.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Hem many persons of Iranian origin are in Canada (a) on a visitor's visa (b) on a student's visa (c) on a working visa (d) by landed immigrant status as of the date the answer to this question is prepared?
2.	How many applications for visas or landed immigrant status, by Iranians, have been received since the current crisis in Iran has occurred and how many were (a) accepted (b) rejected?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1.	(a) 2,538
Order Paper Questions
(b)	1,974 of these are in Canada with authorization to study at a Canadian educational or training institution, and
(c)	273 have authorization to accept specified employment in Canada.
(d)	4,949 Iranian citizens were landed in Canada between 1946 and 1979 inclusive.
Notes:	I (a), (b) and (c) show preliminary figures as of
April 1, 1980,
II included in the 4,949 in (d) is a preliminary figure of 1,063 Iranian citizens for 1979. In reference to (d), it is impossible to estimate how many of those landed during that period may have since left, since there are no exit controls. 1946 was the first year Iran was treated as a separate country.
2.	Total applications received abroad from November 4, 1979 to April 1, 1980-339.
(a)	Approved	23
(b)	Withdrawn or
Failed	108
In process	208
Total applications received in Canada from November 4, 1979 to April 1, 1980-40.
(a) Approved	1
In process	39
Note: November 4, 1979, was the date the United States Embassy in Iran was seized and hostages taken.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	As of March 31, 1979 (a) how many persons in the SX classification were employed by the Department of the Secretary of State (b) how many were (i) francophones (ii) females?
2.	What are the present totals?
3.	Was there a structural change in the department since March 31, 1979, and, if so, what effect did such a change have on the number of SXs employed?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: 1.	(a)	Twenty-two
(b)	(i) Thirteen (ii) None
2.	Twenty
(i)	Eleven
(ii)	None
3.	The transfer of Fitness and Amateur Sport to Labour Canada has reduced the number of persons employed in the SX classification.

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Herbert: 1.	As of March 31, 1979 (a) how many persons in the SX classification were employed by the Department of the Solicitor General (b) how many were (i) Francophones (ii) females?
2.	What are the present totals?
3.	Was there a structural change in the department since March 31, 1979, and, if so, what effect did such a change have on the number of SXs employed?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Ministry Secretariat
1.	(a)	8(b)	(i)	I
(ii) None
2.	(a)	10(b)	(i)	1
(ii) None
3.	Yes but there has been no change in the number of SXs employed.
The Correctional Service of Canada
1.	(a)	19(b)	(i)	5
(ii) None
2.	(a)	23(b)	(i)	5(ii)	13.	Yes but it did not affect the number of SXs employed.
National Parole Board
1.	(a)	27 order in council appointments
1 Public Service Employment Act employee
(b) (i)	8
(ii) 6
2.	(a)	28 order in council appointments
1 Public Service Employment Act employee
(b) (i)	9
(ii) 4
3.	Yes but it did not have any effect on the number of SXs employed.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
1.	(a) None
(b) Not applicable
July 7, 1980
2.	Not applicable
3.	No
Note: The answers to parts 1 and 2 are formulated on the understanding that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have no employees in the SX classification per se, even though many of the senior officers are, for the purposes of pay, deemed to be SX equivalents.


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations, are employed on staff in the Department of the Solicitor General?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 7	-	Ministry Secretariat9	-	The Correctional Service	of Canada30	-	Royal Canadian Mounted	Police3	-	National Parole Board


Mr. de Jong: 1.	Did the Department of the Environment take any action with regard to the proposal by S.C.A. Services of Lewiston, New York to dump 2,000,000 gallons of effluent into the Niagara River and, if so, what action was taken?
2.	Were representations made to the American government or the state of New York and, if so, to what extent?
3.	Is the Minister aware of the plans to dump 2,000,000 gallons of effluent daily into the Niagara River which then flows into Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River?
4.	Is the department aware that over 100,000,000 gallons of dangerous wastes are already in storage very near to the Canadian border?
5.	Are steps being taken to ensure that Canada's environment is protected from such waste disposal methods and, if so, what are they?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: 1. Environment Canada officials have been closely following public hearings which are being held in New York State into the proposed discharge of 1,000,000 gallons (U.S.) of treated liquid industrial effluent to the Niagara River. These hearings commenced June 25, 1979, and the department is closely following proceedings as they continue almost one year later.
2. Concerns of the Government of Canada regarding water quality of the Niagara River have been formally presented to the United States Government on three occasions. In the latest of those communications (April 15, 1980), assurances have been sought of the government of the United States that in any and all regulatory activities, including those associated with SCA, United States jurisdictions will respect the obligations undertaken in the Boundary Treaty of 1909 and in the
July 7, 1980

1978 Great,Lakes Water Quality Agreement. In addition, on April 18, 1980, the Minister of the Environment met with the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency to urge him to seek a re-examination of the SCA project, in light of the continuing concerns of Canadians and the fact that the Niagara River already carries a substantial pollution load.
3.	The Minister of the Environment is aware of plans of SCA Chemical Waste Services Inc. of New York state, to discharge up to 1,000,000 gallons (U.S.) of treated liquid industrial waste to the Niagara River.
4.	The department is aware that about 105,000,000 gallons (U.S) of treated liquid industrial waste is in storage at the SCA plant site, four miles from the Niagara River.
5.	The following steps are being taken to ensure that the health and environment of Canadians will be protected.
(a)	Environment Canada officials are working on a thorough re-examination of the information submitted as evidence in the SCA hearings being held in New York state; the consequences for the Niagara River arising from the conditions in the draft permit; and recent water quality data on the Niagara River.
(b)	The technical and scientific expertise of Environment Canada has been offered to Canadians in the preparation of technical arguments which they may be developing for the hearings.
(c)	Officials from Environment Canada, in co-operation with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, are monitoring the SCA hearings.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Was a resource ministers council established and, if so (a) on what date (b) what was its purpose (c) what were its accomplishments?
2.	Was the council supported by a secretariate and, if so (a) where was it located (b) is it still functioning and, if not, for what reason and on what date was it disbanded?
3.	With reference to the joint federal/provincial responsibility in resource management and development, what co-ordinating organization has taken over the responsibilities of the resource ministers secretariat and general secretary?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. Yes.
(a)	The Canadian Council of Resource Ministers (CCRM) was incorporated under the Companies Act on March 5, 1964. The name was changed in 1971 to Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers (CCREM).
(b)	The purpose was redefined in 1974 by the council members (ministers) as:
"To stimulate development of compatible and co-operative nature resources and environmental management policies and pro-
Order Paper Questions
grams through exchange of information, consultation and debate".
(c)	The following comment relative to "accomplishments" appeared in a recent CCREM statement:
"No systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of CCREM has been attempted, nor has a list of specific achievements been prepared. Both approaches would present problems in evaluating an organization whose objectives were initially, the provision of policy advice and, subsequently, stimulation of co-operative policies. The latter provides the basis for a very generalized evaluation: as the primary forum for consultation among governments at the policy level, CCREM has made a significant contribution to the development of 'compatible and co-operative policies' in the environment and renewable resource field. This evaluation takes into account the complexities of the fields, stemming from mobility of elements such as water and air; the extent of shared jurisdiction and responsibility among governments; and the general character or working relationships among the eleven governments".
2.	Yes.
(a)	Initially the CCRM Secretariat was located in Montreal. It is currently located at 60 Bloor St. W., Toronto, Ontario.
(b)	Yes.
3.	Appropriate functions of a "Resource Ministers Secretariat and General Secretary", as defined by ministers during the 1974 reorganization, are carried on through the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 935 and 1,019 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 935 and 1,019 be deemed to be made orders for returns?
2600

July 7, 1980
Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McKinnon: Between January 1, 1969 and January 1, 1980, by year and by rank, what was the total paid strength of all (a) officers above the rank of Lt-Colonel or equivalent (b) DND civilian employees above the rank equivalent to Lt-Colonel?
Return tabled.


Mr. Siddon: 1.	How many de Havilland Twin Otter Aircraft have crashed during the past ten years (a) in Canada (b) worldwide and, in each case, how many persons were killed?
2.	For the same years, how many such aircraft have crashed on its Final approach to an airport or upon landing and (a) where did the accident occur and how many persons were killed (b) how many were due to (i) the failure of the propeller thrust reversal mechanism (ii) the failure of wing control surfaces, hinges or control rods (iii) pilot error (iv) a cause unknown or undisclosed?
Return tabled.
[ English ]


David Michael Collenette: 1 would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Eugene Whelan: that Bill C-26, to implement an agreement between Her Majesty in right of the province of British Columbia and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting the sharing of revenues from the exploitation of minerals in the Fort Nelson Indian reserve, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) moved: that Bill C-7, to amend the Saltfish Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We would like to hear the statement of the minister.


Roméo LeBlanc: When things are moving so fast in the House, sometimes you cannot follow everything. I am pleased to introduce for second reading Bill C-7 to amend the Saltfish Act and increase the borrowing authority of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation from $15 million to $30 million.
As hon. members who are familiar with that corporation know, it was given under the related provincial law and legislation the monopoly over the trade of saltfish produced in Newfoundland and Labrador as well as the lower North Shore of Quebec.

In the past, a $15 million ceiling for borrowing has been adequate for the corporation, but important changes have occurred. The Atlantic fisheries, close to bankruptcy in the mid-1970s, are now on the upswing. As a result of the recovery of codfish resources, the northern cod stocks in particular, a dramatic surge in the supply of saltfish products is forecast. At the same time, vigorous efforts are being made to create new market opportunities for codfish products abroad, especially in countries in southern Europe which were formerly supplied by their own home-based fleets.
While we are not yet sure as to the exact amount of fish which will be harvested by our own offshore fleet in those northern, ice-covered waters, our projections show that codfish landings from inshore and near shore operations alone will exceed 200,000 metric tons by 1985 or earlier in Newfoundland alone. Landings of that quantity represent a product yield in excess of 50,000 tons, which would be 50 per cent more than the 1977-78 supply of cod products from all sources in that province. Conceivably, if there is a substantial catch from the offshore grounds, the total supply could be twice the current level.
At the moment there is general agreement among industry and my department that existing markets-and this is chiefly the U.S. market-are not expansible enough to absorb a supply of that magnitude in frozen product form. Nor will the other potential markets take all of our surplus cod in frozen product form. It is, therefore, wise to consider the principal alternative to frozen products, and that is cured codfish. 1 consider it prudent to plan for an approximate doubling of
July 7, 1980

salted and dried cod production over the next five years; that is, a supply of at least 20,000 tonnes per year.

When the Canadian Saltfish Corporation was established in 1970, the borrowing ceiling was set at $10 million. In 1976, that total proved insufficient and the actual limit was set at $15 million. Mr. Speaker, we have now reached a point where even that amount is totally insufficient. The prospects for the middle of this decade indicate the annual product yield will reach double the present volume. In addition, inflation complicated the financial problems of the corporation, as for any other commercial business, without the increase in prices for raw materials and processing costs at the rate of 5 per cent to 6 per cent a year.
Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to point out the necessity of passing those amendments as soon as possible. Indeed, this bill has for a large part been prepared and approved by the government that preceded ours and by my immediate predecessor. Mr. Speaker, as there could be a strike in the fishing industry in Newfoundland, the Canadian Saltfish Corporation could find itself forced to buy additional quantities of saltfish. And as the terms of reference of the corporation force it to buy all available saltfish, it must have the power to borrow the necessary funds to do that.

1 am sure most hon. members will recall that the corporation is a non-profit organization which employs private firms as its agents for the purchase, processing and storage of cod, then buys the product and sells it on the Canadian and international markets.
Fishermen such as those living on Quebec's north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence who fish from isolated communities in small open boats have a difficult time making a living. Since 1971 the corporation has been the sole buyer of salted cod produced on the North Shore, and since that time has played a major role in the economic well-being of the area.
Over the past seven years the corporation's marketing efforts have resulted in an increase of 200 per cent in the price for salted fish paid to the small boat fishermen. As a part of an integrated operation the corporation supplies salt to the fishermen and advances loans to outfit boats and obtain fishing gear.
I am sure this proposal to increase the corporation's borrowing ceiling will be met with the general agreement of all hon. members, and that they will give their support to Bill C-7 in order that we can amend this act very soon.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has indicated, this is a housekeeping bill, one which will meet with the general approval of the House. Indeed, evidence of that is the fact that the House has agreed to dispose of the bill at all stages this afternoon.
As the minister indicated, the bill in fact was introduced into the cabinet by the previous administration, a cabinet in which I had the privilege to hold down the portfolio which my
Saltfish Act
hon. friend now holds. Certainly there is general approval of the need for an increase in the borrowing authority of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation for all the reasons outlined by my friend, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc).
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, normally I would take my seat, but I cannot resist availing myself of the opportunity to express a few of my concerns, which I have already made known to the minister, in respect of the direction of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation.
This is the first opportunity I have had to speak in the House on a fisheries bill. The last bill we had before the House was Bill C-28, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. Unfortunately I was not present for that debate, but if one reads what was said in that debate one would swear, apart from references by my hon. friend opposite, that there was not in fact a change of government or that there had been a new minister in office for the previous nine months.
However, I just say that in passing because I will have an opportunity to lay upon the record at some future date the very substantial accomplishments of the Clark administration during the nine months it held office, particularly in the area of fisheries.
I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the minister's department. As one who had the privilege of being minister of fisheries and oceans, I found within the department a degree of dedication and professionalism which certainly impressed me and which certainly speaks well for the way in which this very important primary industry is being managed under the constitutional authority of the Government of Canada.
From the deputy minister right on down to the fisheries officers in the field, one could not find in any part of the public service of Canada or, indeed, in any other sector of Canadian industry, more professionalism and more dedication than among the men and women who serve the minister in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I take this opportunity to publicly thank them for the very objective way in which they supported me when I had the privilege of holding the portfolio of minister of fisheries and oceans.


Roméo LeBlanc: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the founding president of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation, Mr. Aidan Maloney, who is now chairman of the Fisheries Prices Support Board and who is a person upon whom I relied heavily for my advice during my tenure as minister. I am sure that my successor feels the same way and that he will utilize Mr. Maloney in the same way in which I did, because he is a very important source of good common sense and advice. He was the founding president when the corporation was set up in 1970, and he served it well.

July 7, 1980
Saltfish Act
1 would point out to the minister that when the corporation was set up by the Hon. Jack Davis in 1970, there was general approval in the House to the principle of central selling of salt and cured fish. At that time Mr. Davis made it a point of having consultation with all members of the House who were particularly interested in this area of the fishing industry. I suggest to my hon. colleague that apart from the opportunities he will have to co-operate with the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, it might be a good idea from time to time if we were to meet with members of the House from all parties who have a special interest in a fishery or fisheries and who come from constituencies in which fisheries play a major role.
In any event, the corporation was set up with the active support of all members of the House. I supported the bill at that time. Indeed, we all did because we felt that setting up this corporation was the only way in which we could save this very important salt fishery. At that time, as the minister said in his opening remarks, the salt fish industry was on the verge of disappearing unless it received special attention. Of course, when dealing with a commodity, obviously the most efficient, expeditious way of dealing with commodity selling is through central desk selling, as in the case of the Canadian Wheat Board.
It is interesting to note that since the corporation was set up in 1970 its sales figures have gone from $6.8 million in 1971 to $24 million in 1979. The minister has already indicated that that figure will grow even more and hence the need for increasing the borrowing authority of the corporation. The reason the corporation will grow is because of increased demands upon it by fishermen, which will come about largely as a result of the recovery of fish stocks and as a result of the failure or inability of the U.S. market to handle 80 per cent to 85 per cent of our fresh frozen fish output, as is now the case.
I might say in passing that I was disturbed to hear a few weeks ago that the EEC had turned down proposals which 1 had initiated as minister of fisheries and which were supported by my colleague, my successor, with respect to trading off groundfish quotas within our zone for tariff concessions in order for us to compete successfully with the Icelandic and Norwegian companies in that very important European market, which has a potential, I believe, of somewhere around 500,000 metric tons. I was very disturbed to hear that that proposal had been turned down and rejected by the EEC, largely as a result of pressure, I understand, from the United Kingdom.
Unless we can penetrate that market, then not only the saltfish sector will be in trouble but the fresh frozen fish sector will be in very serious trouble, trouble into which it now appears to be heading. I hope that the minister will have an opportunity, either in closing the debate on second reading or in the opportunity which will be afforded him in the committee stage, to tell us exactly what the position is with regard to negotiations with the EEC for our groundfish products into that market to gain fair entry and compete with Iceland and Norway, which now enjoy tariff-free entry.
The minister referred a few minutes ago to increase demands on the corporation as the result of the growth in stocks and the inability of the U.S. market to absorb the total output of Canadian fishermen in Newfoundland and Quebec, which are the only two provinces that are covered by the mandate of the corporation. He also referred to the possibility, indeed the very likely probability, of a strike by the fishermen's union in Newfoundland this summer. Of course, if that happens-and I hope it does not because it is a strike, I am afraid, in which there will be no winners-the fishermen will be able to cure or salt their fish and sell it to the corporation and not be violating the strike, because essentially it will be a strike against the fresh frozen fish processors. However, it will certainly tax the ability of the corporation to handle and market this fish successfully.
I believe that this fish can be marketed successfully because I am convinced that there is a growing demand in the world for good quality saltfish; there is no question about that. We must put the emphasis on quality if we are to compete successfully with Norway and Iceland and other countries which are selling good quality salted fish. Of course, the market is immense. We have barely touched the market, although the corporation has made substantial gains since it was founded in 1970.
That brings me to the concern which I have and the reason I am making this intervention in this debate at this particular time. Shortly after assuming the responsibility of minister of fisheries, I met with the Canadian Saltfish Corporation and expressed to them my concern. First of all, I expressed my continued support for the Canadian Saltfish Corporation and the work it was doing on behalf of Canadian fishermen. I wish to re-emphasize that it is because of my firm belief in the corporation and the responsibility which it has that I am concerned.
My concern arises out of the fact that when I assumed office 1 discovered, for example, that the corporation was, under contract, marketing fresh frozen codfish from a co-operative in Newfoundland. I indicated to them my reason for not wanting the corporation involved in the marketing of frozen fish, that it was beyond the terms of their mandate. I had all kinds of sympathy for the co-operative which had no way of marketing its fish, and I suggested that such sales should be eased out as opposed to being cut off abruptly in order that the co-operative in question would have an opportunity to make alternate marketing arrangements.
My concern is that such an operation goes beyond the terms of reference of the corporation as they are set out in the act. The corporation agreed that they would not engage in the business of marketing fresh frozen fish. I am now advised that a contract between the corporation and certain small independent processors in Newfoundland is in the making, under which the corporation will handle and market the product of these small processors of fresh frozen fish. In my view, that can only serve to seriously undermine the corporation and public confidence in the corporation.
July 7, 1980

The minister knows full well that the corporation is not without enemies and that those enemies are not without influence. All they need is an excuse to turn their guns on this very useful and worth-while corporation. That would be regrettable. I believe that if the minister sanctions this marketing arrangement with the small processors he will not, albeit inadvertently, be acting in the best interests of the corporation. I believe the small processors have a right to marketing but they have a problem in that they have to compete with the large processors. There is nothing to stop them from coming together and forming a co-operative marketing company, however.
If the minister wants to bring in a bill to set up a company to market fresh frozen fish, then we will deal with it on its own terms. Or if the minister wants to bring in an amendment to the Saltfish Act to make provision for the marketing of fresh frozen fish, we will deal with that on its own terms as well. I hope, however, that the minister does not use the act establishing the corporation for these purposes.
I should like to quote in support of my argument from the statute establishing the Canadian Saltfish Corporation, Mr. Speaker. Under the heading "Purpose and Powers", section 7 of the act reads as follows:
The corporation is established for the purpose of improving the earnings of primary producers of cured saltfish by curing fish and trading in and marketing cured fish and the byproducts of fish curing and, in addition to the powers conferred by other provisions of this act and by any other act, has for that purpose power to
(a)	buy fish and dress, salt, dry or package it, or otherwise prepare cured fish
and the byproducts of fish curing for market;
(b)	buy cured fish and the byproducts of fish curing and package or otherwise
prepare such fish and byproducts for market;
There is no reference there or anywhere in the act to giving the corporation authority to buy fish in its fresh frozen state and to sell it in that form. According to the act it can specifically only buy and sell cured fish and, generally speaking, that means cured codfish. It can sell other species as long as it is cured-for example, pickled herring or salted salmon, which it now sells from the Labrador fishery. Nowhere in the act, however, is there authority for the corporation to sell fresh frozen fish. If the corporation does that, as it has in the past, and if it agrees to act as marketing agent for small processors of fresh frozen fish, then it is acting beyond the terms of its mandate and certainly leaves itself open to litigation.
I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that my concern stems from the fact that I believe in the corporation. I believe it has an excellent future and that it is under good management now, as it has been in the past. As the minister knows, it has a good board of directors. It is a Crown corporation responsible to Parliament through the minister, and hence we as parliamentarians have a special responsibility for it. It is because of my concern for the future of the corporation that I want to express these arguments and to state categorically that I believe the minister and his corporation would be acting outside its mandate-indeed, would be acting illegally-if the corporation were to enter into an agreement with small processors or
Saltfish Act
anyone else to sell products other than cured and/or salted fish products.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one further reference and that is to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, which was the model for this corporation. As the minister knows, when this party was in office it undertook a review of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. We met with the western provinces and obtained a general agreement with them for such a review. Indeed, they agreed to name senior officials to a committee that would undertake the review. The review was to have been completed in April when there was to be a meeting of provincial ministers with the federal government in Winnipeg.
We have heard nothing of it since that time but I know the review has been completed. I wonder if the minister might take the opportunity that is open to him when he replies on second reading, or at committee stage or third reading, to tell the House exactly what has happened to that review and the role or mandate of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. I hope the minister will also take the opportunity to tell the House exactly what the position is with regard to negotiations on tariff concessions for Canadian groundfish in the very important market of the European Economic Community.
I wish the corporation well, Mr. Speaker, but I hope it does not get involved in activities that will bring it criticism. That is what will happen if it allows itself to be lured-even if for good, understandable and commendable reasons-into what in my opinion would be an illegal activity, the marketing of fresh frozen fish.


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-AIberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-7 as I appreciate the necessity of increasing the borrowing power of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation. The minister outlined some of the needs and reasons for increasing the borrowing requirement. The only criticism I have is that he did not elaborate on the needs of the Saltfish Corporation.
The 200-mile extended jurisdiction for our fisheries generated a great deal of enthusiasm in Canada and raised many expectations, particularly in the fishing industry. As well as the required capacity to process the stocks from the 200-mile zone, the minister outlined the increases expected by Newfoundland alone, particularly of northern cod which is in great demand. There is some controversy about who should harvest that cod but certainly the Saltfish Corporation has an opportunity to improve the quality of its fishery and the product that it can export.
Other reasons have been alluded to in the annual reports of the Saltfish Corporation. I am sorry that the minister did not expand on some of those requirements, particularly the improvement of quality. There has been talk at times of the need for more cold storage, more drying capacity, and a different kind of fleet to harvest the catch, or at least some onboard storage and handling facilities. 1 would have thought the minister would have taken this opportunity to inform the House, the public gallery and the public in general in more

July 7, 1980
Saltfish Act
detail of his expectations for the Saltfish Corporation and its market.
I hope that some of the money being sought will be used to increase the research done by the corporation into the kind of product it can sell. This is an important matter, particularly when other nations are increasing their capacity as well. Others have a 200-mile limit and can manage their fishery just as well as we can manage ours. They will be looking for similar markets for their product.
Another place where the minister might give some direction is in regard to processing techniques and improvements in saltfish preparation to meet market demands. The $30 million is to be spent on improved means of preparation of the product. 1 hope that drying facilities will be provided by the corporation to companies in coastal communities in order to maintain employment in the onshore fishery that is so dependent on saltfish.
I should like to congratulate a former minister, the Hon. Jack Davis, who set up the Saltfish Corporation in 1970. It helped preserve those coastal communities at a time when private companies were finding that they could get a better price for fresh cod than for saltfish and so were decreasing its production. Indeed, I think the establishment of the Saltfish Corporation has justified its existence. We are now getting to the point where the Saltfish Corporation is getting some of the same benefits as some of the private companies in increased stocks, and hopefully an increased size of stock.
This brings me to a point that I would like the minister to explain; perhaps he will when we get into Committee of the Whole. It concerns the process by which we will improve the quality of the stock and the product that we sell in the United States market, in southern Europe and possibly in southern Brazil. The interdepartmental report filed in May, 1979, indicated that one of the concerns of the corporation and of the department was the small size of the cod that we are catching in Canada and the need to get a larger cod for a better product. The suggestion was made that perhaps we will have to diversify our present fishery. Rather than concentrating on the fresh frozen market of the United States particularly, as the major companies have, we should seek diversified markets. This party wholeheartedly supports that concept. We can no longer continually depend on a major market in the United States, a market that is attempting to meet its requirements from its own fishermen. By getting into the saltfish business and seeking different markets, we can agree and certainly support that concept. I would have liked the minister to explain how we are going to get a larger cod for the saltfish market.
The report suggests there is a possibility that the offshore fleet can perhaps provide some of the largest stock for the Saltfish Corporation and the agents of that corporation. I would have liked the minister to explain how he perceives that coming about.
The former minister who spoke recently indicated in a press release in The Globe and Mail in November last year that there may be an opportunity for the private companies, because of the expanding interest in saltfish, to get back to the saltfish business. I would like the present minister to comment on how he perceives the private companies and the larger corporations now coming back into saltfish marketing either through the corporation or in competition with that corporation, after having abandoned the Newfoundland and Quebec fishermen a number of years ago for higher profits in another field. Are we going to allow private companies in Quebec and Newfoundland to come into competition with the Saltfish Corporation and possibly reduce its effectiveness in terms of marketing that product on world markets? Perhaps we can ask the minister in committee if that is a possibility.
As I see it, the important thing for the minister, his department and the Saltfish Corporation is to meet growing demands. The minister made it sound as though our markets are rapidly expanding. Certainly the Puerto Rico market is the major Saltfish Corporation market. There are two countries that bought a great deal of saltfish from Canada in 1978, yet from the annual reports of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation they show a disturbing reduction in the amount of product those countries purchased in 1979. I am referring to Jamaica and Trinidad. In 1978 Jamaica purchased 3,826,000 pounds of saltfish from the corporation. In 1979 it purchased one million pounds. In 1978 Trinidad purchased over two million pounds of saltfish from the corporation and in 1979 it purchased only 1.4 million pounds. Trinidad's reduction in purchases is not of the same magnitude as that of Jamaica's, but it is still a significant reduction in the market at that level. The annual report does not indicate why there was any reduction of purchases by Jamaica or Trinidad. It would be interesting for us to find out if it is a matter of quality of product, a pricing problem, tariffs that have been imposed, or what the conditions are that are reducing exports to those two countries.
Between 1978 and 1979 total shipments were reduced from 20 million pounds to 18 million pounds. Again, this indicates that the Saltfish Corporation is not expanding its market as we may have wished and may have been led to believe by the minister's comments. It is a disturbing reduction in the total exports. We will, of course, be interested to find out what 1980 brings to the Saltfish Corporation.
While fishermen are getting better prices for their product, we do not seem to be expanding the amount of product that we are selling, at least in terms of tonnage. This is certainly true domestically and in the export field.
We support the Saltfish Corporation and we support the bill before us today which will allow the Saltfish Corporation to expand to meet the needs of fishermen and processors in the industry. We hope that the Saltfish Corporation will be able to develop a marketing strategy that will enable it to compete on the world market with other nations who will be looking for the same markets as Canada.
The $30 million should be enough to assure fishermen an adequate income and as well be enough to ensure that we do
July 7, 1980

provide the facilities and give leadership, in terms of processing and fishing to meet quality standards, something which the minister and his department have been establishing over the last few years.
What is needed in the maritimes and Atlantic provinces is leadership from the minister and an indication of where he is going. We would like an elaboration of where he is going so that processors, fishermen and people who are involved in the marketing aspect know precisely what this minister intends to do with regard to fleet development, processing, quaity standards and inspection, so that we can have a determined effort on the part of the federal and provincial governments in conjunction with the federal government, processors and fishermen. We will be anxiously awaiting further announcements from the minister as well as some elaboration from the minister on these points when we go into Committee of the Whole.


Roméo LeBlanc: that Bill C-7, to amend the Saltfish Act, be now read the second time and, with unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


[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-Limitation.
Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, it might help our discussion if I were to answer some of the points made. Of course, hon. members may wish to ask further questions.
I certainly share the support expressed by my predecessor for the Saltfish Corporation. In fact, if I have one slight regret it is that it does not seem to have been scheduled as one of the items to be considered by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. I know that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation will be before the committee this week and I expect that the question of the report which the former minister raised will be addressed there. The fact is, however, that the corporation has been doing the job assigned by two provinces-Newfoundland, the leading province, and Quebec, whose part of the fishery is within the limits of the corporation. They have consistently appointed good board members; with the other appointments which, I might say, have traditionally been quite free of partisanship, the corporation has done a good job.
The former minister asked me to comment on the penetration of the European Economic Community frozen and saltfish markets. We have had some success in penetrating the European Common Market with saltfish. In the area of the negotiations which are taking place I can tell the committee that the last group which went to Europe was there some ten days ago. Since I was in British Columbia until last week I have not had a full report, but today I had a conversation with some of the industry advisers who attended the meetings and it is obvious
Saltfish Act
that the desire of Canada to sell fish to the Common Market countries is very strong.
The question really will boil down to what price the community will want us to pay for access to their markets, and what price we will be willing to pay in relation to their access to the Canadian fishing zones. That is the type of trade-off which will have to be fully discussed with representatives of the industry.
I might say that on the Canadian side, especially on the part of the fishermen and processors, there is a little bit less enthusiasm about the sort of trade-offs that are being talked about because the Canadian industry feels it can process most of the fish available. I have pointed out, however, that we may catch every fish in the zone but we may also need some very large warehouses. That is where there may well be honest differences of opinion and I hope to hold further discussions with the industry in the weeks to come.
One of the difficulties we face-and I think this applies to comments made by the critic for the New Democratic Party and, of course, by the former minister-is in relation to quality. I would not want to be misunderstood and indicate that we are not selling good quality fish. We are. The fact is that very often quality tends to be defined in certain markets in terms of size, the sort of product which is very attractive to consumers, especially in what I would call the luxury markets. Of course, much of this fish is caught by large trawlers and is processed immediately through the frozen fish plants. The corporation this year offered an incentive price for larger fish and has been having good results from this offer. I think this tendency will increase since these high quality, premium products tend to act as leaders into the markets we hope to penetrate. The corporation, of course, is not at liberty to be all that selective as to size, since by law it must buy all the fish offered to it by fishermen if it is of acceptable quality.
The previous minister raised the question of a few small, independent processors of frozen fish who approached the corporation and asked it to help them in marketing their product. I was immediately advised of this and pondered at some length whether, in reacting to this sort of request, I should allow this to take place. I might say to the committee that I agreed, taking into account the precedent of the province of Newfoundland. For some years the Saltfish Corporation has been acting as the seller of northern-caught char and some herring, and since the government of Newfoundland is one of the principal partners in the corporation, it did not seem to object too strenuously. Also, this was not a direct approach by the corporation, and there would be no financial exposure of the corporation, which means that this could reflect on the income of fishermen who are served by the corporation. I might say, though, that my predecessor forgot to point out that one of the aims of the corporation was to increase the income of fishermen. Recognizing that this was not a precedent which

July 7, 1980
Saltfish Act
should be taken lightly, I did indicate to the corporation that if the board approved its getting involved at the request of a few small processors, until such time as there was a mechanism to create the sort of organization for marketing that the hon.
member for St. John's East mentioned, then 1 would "tolerate" it-and I use that word in quotation marks.
Now, it may have been that in doing this I trespassed somewhat, but I think that the board, acting upon its responsibilities, did agree that in this case the corporation could act as an adviser without exposure to itself, therefore helping the income of the fishermen. 1 do not see this as a long-lasting precedent. I think that the orderly marketing approach is now generally accepted. I might say that I had some excellent discussions on this issue with representatives of the Newfoundland processors at lunchtime this very day. Orderly marketing would, in fact, help to avoid this sort of situation and this appears to me to be highly desirable. But again having seen in the past that the corporation did act a little outside its mandate in the purchase of char and herring, I thought there could be a certain amount of tolerance in this case.
Mr. Chairman, in commenting on some of the points made by the critic for the New Democratic Party, I might indicate to him that one of the reasons there has been a drop in the Jamaican and Trinidad markets is the scarcity of hard currency in those countries, especially Jamaica, which has led to dramatic cuts in their purchases from Canada. This is certainly part of the explanation.
As for the drop in the amount of fish marketed by the corporation, I might say that the corporation to a certain extent plays a passive role in the sense that if a fisherman wants to sell to the frozen industry, which in 1978 was extremely vigorous and because of our dollar was selling everything it could get its hands on, then the corporation does not go out and compete directly with the preference of the fisherman.
The hon. member also talked about quality. 1 agree with him. I think the new president of the corporation has undertaken something of a crusade to improve quality, although 1 would not want this to be seen at all as a reflection on the previous authorities of the corporation. But the corporation does recognize that if it is going to invade what I call the high luxury market, that is, a market where high prices can be demanded, it must deliver the sort of product the client wants. Considerable efforts are being made in this area.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that saltfish prices held very well during the 1974 crisis when frozen fish was in trouble. That indicates that even when the frozen fish market is very good it is wise for Canada to have the Saltfish Corporation in good health, able to provide an alternative for fishermen and also able to maintain a window on markets which have stood up well over the years. 1 have already indicated that the size of fish is important and that some incentives are being offered this year.
1 think, Mr. Chairman, that I will stop there and try to answer questions.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong the debate, but the minister did make reference in his reply to my question to the powers of the corporation and the fact that these powers were being exceeded by any attempt to market products other than cured fish. The minister said that 1 did not define what I meant by cured fish.
It so happens that the act clearly defines what it means by cured fish, and it might be worth entering this into the record. The interpretation section of the act, section 2, states that cured fish means fish that has received curing. Curing means processing with salt or with salt and drying. So clearly the act is quite specific. It is quite confining in terms of what the corporation may do, and the minister uses as a precedent the fact that, acting on the request of the government of Newfoundland, the corporation is involved in marketing certain products which are caught by fishermen on the coast of Labrador, namely, char and herring.
Some of that char is cured, and so is some of the herring. Some of it is also marketed in the fresh frozen state; but that is a relatively small amount of fish we are talking about from individual fishermen. Here we are talking about entering into an agreement with small processor companies which are able, quite frankly, to stand on their own feet in terms either of entering into agreements with larger companies for marketing purposes or banding together and forming a marketing cooperative which, I suggest, they should look seriously at. Or perhaps the minister may want, as I suggested in my remarks at second reading, to bring in an amendment to this act or a measure providing for marketing in certain cases for fresh frozen fish. We would certainly be prepared to deal with that.
The minister referred to the fact that this corporation will not be coming before the standing committee, and the reason it is not coming before the standing committee is that the committee anticipated this bill's coming before the House and, hence, the only chance we will have in this session to deal with the corporation is in the course of the debate on this particular bill.
I have no further comments to make other than to say that my party supports the bill. It is a housekeeping bill. We wish the corporation well, and we are so supportive of the corporation in what it is doing and we are so confident about the future of the corporation in terms of the potential for good salted fish that we see no reason why the minister should expose the corporation to criticism from those who are ready to criticize it by entering into such an agreement. Believe me, sir, I have great sympathy for the small processors. I happen to know them. I know the problem they have, and I am supportive of any measures the government may want to take to

lJuly 7, 1980
lensure the survival of these small processors. I think it is (important that these small processing companies survive.
I I share the concern of my hon. friend opposite about the (corporate concentration which has been taking place in the I industry over the past few years. This corporate concentration Idoes not bode well for the future of the industry, so far as the I individual fisherman is concerned. 1 think the best opportunity I we have to ensure that the individual fishermen will be adequately protected is to ensure that the industry remains com-Ipetitive. The only way the industry can remain competitive, in I my view, is so long as we have in place policies which will (create a climate whereby the smaller processor cannot just (exist but thrive and prosper.
? Mr. LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member's point is (well taken. In fact, we did look at the possibility of bringing in (an amendment which might have authorized the corporation to (widen its mandate, and for the very same reason the hon. | member has expressed I felt that this would drag the corpora-I tion into the sort of debate which really should be settled not (in that area but when and if the government brings in legislation to create orderly marketing, which could be a form of (export licences, some other groupings, consortia or some other (approaches which are now the subject of considerable discus-(sion between my department, the provinces and the industry.
I I think the hon. member's point that this could be an excuse (for an attack against the corporation, or for this sort of (amendment to be brought in or for a practice to be generalized, is a point which is well taken. If I had to err, I would (prefer to err on the side of trying to help a few very small | processors, who at the moment have no legal framework in | which they can associate.
j In fact, it might be that in the new legislation in which some | groupings are created or are formed the Crown corporations in | one way or another could act as a sort of umbrella for small | processors who have nowhere to go and who are a bit worried | about the type of concentration which my predecessor spoke | about. However, I think these are issues which should be the | subject of a wider debate. That being said, I recognize the hon. | member's point.
* Mr. Miller: Mr. Chairman, on the point of orderly market-| ing, I have just spent three days in Nova Scotia and met many | processors who are concerned particularly about what an I orderly marketing board might be. I do not want to get into a prolonged discussion about it today, but one of the concerns the fishery has is not knowing where the department or where the minister is going. I think it behooves the minister to make some of those critical decisions so that processors and fishermen have a better idea of the direction of the department and so that they can get on with the process of catching more fish and processing those fish for bigger and better markets.
I would like just to ask the minister if he could elaborate on the kinds of facilities that he sees this $30 million may be helping to initiate more than to provide. Does he see those facilities in the present processing plants that we have in Newfoundland, Labrador and on the northern shore of
Saltfish Act
Quebec, or does he see an increase in the number of processing plants for saltfish in Newfoundland particularly, tending to be supportive of smaller communities, rather than the larger companies getting into saltfish through the corporation and marketing through that corporation? I think it is important to understand the desire of the people of Newfoundland to maintain as much as possible the type of fleet that is associated with the community.
I suppose my biggest concern right now is the increased funding going into the support of those processors which are already there, and if we expand our markets to increase the number of small processing plants in areas which perhaps are experiencing high unemployment as a result both of a lack of fish in those areas and a lack of markets for the fish.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Alberni raises the point of orderly marketing. I think it was about two and a half years ago that I indicated that as the stocks were recovering I thought the Canadian industry should improve its co-ordination in the field of marketing, that we should not continue to have two or three dozen Canadian processors selling fish to brokers in competition with each other, and that our best competitors-I am thinking of the Japanese, Norwegian and Icelanders-had in fact co-ordinated and organized their foreign marketing efforts and were outcompeting us.
At the time the industry requested that it be given a chance to explore this and to come up with a voluntary approach at first. I felt that this occasion should be provided, but now even the industry does recognize that, although the voluntary approach has much to be said for it, those who are not voluntary in fact can become the culprits or the people responsible for fire sales and price cutting which, of course, weakens everybody else in the foreign markets. They can also sometimes be responsible for shipments which may not be of the highest quality.
So there is a general recognition that we should have a more organized and a more orderly marketing framework. On the west coast, the hon. member's coast, this is seen as being less necessary, and 1 suspect that the industry in that area feels that it can handle marketing with perfect competence. In fact, historically it has done quite a good job and I do not want to take anything away from them. That is why I see the possibility of formations taking place more on a regional basis than otherwise, and it may be that at one point the British Columbia industry will want us to put around some of their operations the type of framework which other countries have which strengthen their presence in foreign markets.
There is no doubt that we are in a situation in which, I think, my colleague the Minister of Justice, when he was in the Treasury Board, used to say that everybody wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die. So everyone wants Canadians to get the best market for fish on condition that this does not limit their freedom. Of course, this would not be imposed for ideological reasons. I think the idea is gaining ground now.

July 7, 1980
Saltfish Act
Canada should have the sort of strength in the world market for fish that comes from its advantages so far as resources are concerned.
The hon. member seemed to indicate that the $30 million in this bill is intended for construction and other purposes. The fact is that it is a credit increase. Although the corporation does help some of its agents with loans better to equip the facilities or to improve them, in fact it advances money to fishermen against the sale of their product or to the agents who act on behalf of the fishermen under contract with the corporation. The corporation is not very heavily involved in the provision and management of facilities, except in very isolated communities. In fact, it has provided salt and equipment and it has helped fishermen become organized in the sharing of machinery, etc. In that sense it has played an activist role, but usually only in response to a group of fishermen getting together and wanting the corporation to help them become organized. I have always encouraged the corporation to pay a great deal of attention to the isolated communities and to individuals who, with their families, often create a small but good little economic unit by salting very good quality fish as a cottage industry, including the use of their own wash line on which to stretch the fish, using their own back yards. Historically, this has been a successful venture. I see no reason why the cottage industry should not be encouraged.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I have no more questions to ask of the minister but I listened attentively to see if the minister would deal with the question raised by the NDP critic with respect to the role of processors in handling saltfish through the corporation. I do not think the minister dealt with the issue. I should like to bring the minister up to date on the recommendations of the MacKenzie report, which was a working group that was formed to look into the operations of the corporation. MacKenzie recommended in his report that-
-a way must be found to foster innovative action by private traders under the aegis of the corporation . .. the initiative and energy of firms in the private trade must be enlisted for the renewal of the saltfish trade.
He was basing this recommendation on the resurgence of 2J+3KL or northern cod stock. I wonder if a way has been found to accommodate private traders.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge a way has not been found, although there has been increased co-operation in some cases where commercial enterprises had operations in isolated communities and where salting fish was a good way of utilizing the product. I might say that my memory is a little vague with regard to consultation. I remember the MacKenzie report very well. At the time we were trying to see if we could in fact strengthen the corporation in terms of large fish which many of the private industry processors received from their fishermen. Some of the large fish could be segregated out and used for salting. One of the breakdowns which
occurred is that the industry did indicate it would not feel compelled to buy all the fish which a fisherman would bring in. This created a situation where a company which was involved in the salting process could have an advantage over the corporation, which by law has to buy even fairly small sized fish. I suspect it is in this sort of debate that negotiations did not progress as much as we would have liked. There is no doubt that if the frozen market slows down, as it very well might, then the industry which a couple of years ago was doing extremely well in the frozen market might want to have a larger share in the salting operation.
Frankly, I have not seen the results of the period that intervened between my two "incarnations". I will have to check the records to see the point at which we arrived, and of course I will answer questions in the parliamentary committee if this question comes up. However, I will first check to see where we stand on this issue.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, July 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove that Bill C-13, respecting the relocation of government agencies, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words on Bill C-13 which has already been debated in the House on a couple of occasions. I should like to support the complaint which the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) made at the beginning of his first speech on this bill when he drew attention to the fact that far too often around here the government acts and then brings in the legislation afterwards. That is, in effect, what is happening in respect of this bill. Many decisions have been made and practically implemented before we get the bill to give parliamentary authorization thereto. As I say, this happens not only in respect of this piece of legislation, but it happens quite often. I think the government should be more respectful of the rights of Parliament in this regard.
As a matter of fact, something like this is happening on Parliament Hill right now. As hon. members know, we took over the East Block a couple of years ago in the belief that it
July 7, 1980

would be a building for additional office space for members of the House of Commons. The Department of Public Works has had its people in there renovating it and getting it ready for occupancy, but already an argument has developed as to who is to be moving into the East Block.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I wish there was no argument. I would be quite happy to go there if no one else wants to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 am not getting involved in the argument personally. I started off in this building a long time ago, and 1 intend to stay in this building for a long time yet.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Until the next election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A lot longer than that. But it bothers me, although we have been told members of the House of Commons have priority over there, that that was the reason the building was taken over, that apparently some government people think it is up to the government to have first say as to who goes in there. Then, who start to rear their heads around here?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The senators.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Do you mean the people from the other place?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The senators, the people from the other place. Before there is a decision as to who is to go there, some people have started to move in already. 1 understand some ministers are over there and some other people have accommodation. I just do not think it should operate in that way. However, that is an example of action preceding the decision, and I do not like it whenever it takes place.
With respect to Bill C-13, hon. members will not be surprised if I say that 1 favour its general principle, but there is one instance of a removal from this city to another part of the country about which I am still unhappy. As I say, I agree with the general principle that offices of the Government of Canada should be in various parts of this country, that everything does not need to be congregated here in the national capital area. For example, we have the Mint in Winnipeg. I do not think it has done anything to the money supply one way or another that the Mint is out there instead of here.


An hon. Member:: Do they mint coins of the same quality?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend questions the quality of the coins, but that is not because the Mint is out in Winnipeg. As 1 say, moving some of these departments out and giving different parts of the country the opportunity to have government employment in their areas is a good idea, and 1 support the general principle. However, before any department is moved, 1 think serious consideration should be given to its functions and to the question whether people will be affected adversely.
Decentralization
That is the feeling I still have about moving the Department of Veterans Affairs from this capital city. 1 think it should have been kept here. I think the nature of its operations and the accessibility of its branches and divisions in Ottawa is something which is important. 1 recognize it is too late to argue about that. The Liberal government that was in power in the Thirtieth Parliament decided that the move was to take place. The Conservative government that was in power in the Thirty-first Parliament endorsed the decision and decided to go ahead with the move of the Department of Veterans Affairs and its associated bodies to Charlottetown. Now the bill is before us, so it is an accomplished fact and there is no point in making further comments about that decision.
I rise to make a very strong plea that veterans not be asked to pay the price of this move. We had it brought out in the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs that the backlog of veterans' cases-and 1 am referring to veterans who have disabilities and are seeking disability pensions-has increased in the last few months. We were given various reasons for that, such as the death of certain doctors, the difficulty of recruitment and so on. It was never said to us in plain language that it had something to do with the move of the department from Ottawa to Charlottetown, but most of us know it has something to do with that move. As I say, 1 am not trying to stop the move. There is not much point; it cannot be stopped. But in order to keep up with the service to which veterans are entitled, if it means more money will have to be spent, then let it be spent by the government and by all the people of Canada instead of making veterans pay the cost of this move. Every time a veteran's disability pension is delayed, an injustice is done to him. Even if he gets it down the road a bit, justice delayed is justice denied. If it becomes necessary to increase the number of people employed by the Canadian Pension Commission, the war veterans allowance board or the Department of Veterans Affairs itself in order to keep up the service to veterans, then let us increase that number of employees and let us provide the service they are entitled to receive.
I was pleased from an exchange today that it was made clear that the bill regarding veterans, and particularly their widows, will be brought in on Wednesday. Most of us knew that it was to come in some day this week in any case, but it is good to have it, to have it for sure and to get it passed into law on Wednesday of this week. But it is not enough to provide these things in the law, particularly in the Pension Act, if veterans will suffer delays in getting the awards to which they are entitled. The very real danger is that the transferring of the offices of all branches and agencies connected with veterans affairs to Charlottetown will have that effect.
I do not see my friend from Charlottetown who I believe intended to speak on this matter and perhaps be on the other side, but I say to him that I am not arguing either against the principle of decentralizing offices or that anything more should be done to try to stop this move. The Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans' organizations did their best. All

July 7, 1980
Decentralization
right, the decision has been made, but my plea today is very clear. The decision having been made, if extra money has to be spent and extra persons have to be employed, be they doctors, clerks or what have you, so that veterans will get the same service from the department which is partly here and partly in Charlottetown as they would have got had the department stayed here, let those employees be hired and let that money be spent.
That is my plea, and probably it can be made with respect to some other departments as well. The superannuation branch is in Moncton now. That is not closely parallel to the case of the veterans, but there too, if this results in delays in dealing with superannuation cases, let us try and make up for those delays by employing whatever staff is necessary.
That is the comment 1 wish to make on this bill. I hope the problem of my friend, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen), or the problem of anyone else in getting over to the East Block will be resolved. I hope the principle will be established soon that these things are decided before they take place and not afterwards. I hope that in so far as the Department of Veterans Affairs is concerned it will get all of the help, backing and money it needs to provide the services to our veterans to which they are entitled, wherever the headquarters of that department may be located.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I will just take one or two minutes to make a comment on the bill we are discussing today which will change the word "Ottawa" to "national capital", a change which, of course, reflects more accurately the country in terms of where the headquarters of certain government agencies, such as the Economic Council of Canada, and others are situated. I just want to say one or two words about the national capital and about the public service while we are discussing this bill.
1 am very concerned as a person who comes from western Canada that the national capital be as reflective as possible of the country as a whole, that institutions be as reflective as possible of the country as a whole and that the departments of government be reflective of this whole country.
One of the problems we have, and this was said just a short time ago by the Speaker of the other place, the Hon. Jean Marchand, is that our country is extremely large, with a majority of Canadians now really getting from one region to another, whether it is from western Canada to Ontario or Quebec, let alone the Atlantic provinces, or vice versa. Because the country is so large I think it is doubly important that the people who work in this city for the taxpayers, those who work in Hull or in any part of the national capital area, try to be good mirrors of the country as a whole, or as reflective as possible of the country as a whole.
I said in this House a few weeks ago that often the centre tries to impress its values on regions of the country rather than the regions channelling their values and attitudes to the centre, having the centre reflect the entire country. A former very
respected judge in Quebec, Robert Cliche, talked about a certain situation a few years ago. He mentioned the fact that CMHC was designing houses with very small kitchens, and one of the problems was that in Quebec the kitchen is the centre for socializing, a family centre and a place where everybody gathers and has conversations. Apparently that is very traditional for Quebeckers. CMHC had not recognized this fact. The kitchens of houses were designed here in Ottawa by a central agency and were uniform right across the country. Apparently what was good for the designers in Ottawa was supposed to be good for the country as a whole.
That is just a little example of what I am trying to say. This is a country with many communities, which makes us something much more than the totality of them all. To make this country, which is really fantastic, more reflective of those communities, we must find that reflection here in this city. All those values and all those differences which we cherish should be reflected here.
One or two other things along that line I feel are important. When the government, Crown corporations or agencies of the government are hiring people, they should include, along with the merit principle and everything else, the idea of hiring people from various regions and from among the various peoples of Canada. For example, the Indian people of this country have the need to be more directly represented in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In other words, there should be more Indian people having more of a say over governing departments and agencies that directly affect their lives.
I happened to notice the other day a report from one of the government agencies which indicated that the Quebec people, the Atlantic people and the people of western Canada are underrepresented in the federal public service in terms relative to their numbers in the population as a whole. That is one thing the people who do the hiring in the federal government should be thinking of in trying to bring more people from all regions into key positions in the government.
The same thing should take place in respect of Francophones in the public service. We have a special committee of the House now looking at bilingualism and Francophones in the public service. 1 will not go into details in that regard. Many of these problems were catalogued by Max Yalden in the official languages report. It showed that, in terms of middle and upper echelon positions in the Government of Canada, Francophones are vastly underrepresented.
1 did not want this bill to go through without making a few of those points. We have to strive very hard to make the national capital a reflection of this country. Such a reflection was summarized very well by the Pepin-Robarts report of a year or so ago. It referred to duality and regionalism. That is probably as good a report as any to summarize what Canada is really all about. The things referred to in that report should be symbolized here in the national capital. In other words, the national capital should become as much as possible a microcosm of the country as a whole. I know that is very difficult to do in a country so vast and geographically so
July 7, 1980

difficult to move around in, particularly at a time when it is much cheaper to get a chartered flight from Mirabel to London or Paris than it is to take an aircraft from one coast of this country to the other. These are things we have to change. 1 just wanted to make those few comments in passing.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, June 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill S-6, to amend the Two-Price Wheat Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to speak on Bill S-6. I and other members on this side of the House have waited a long time for the presentation of this bill, which will give us an opportunity to discuss something very important to the farmers of western Canada; that is, the price they receive for the production of grain. This bill originated in 1974, six years ago.
That is a considerable time to wait for additional discussion about the price of something as important as grain.
In looking at the clock, Mr. Speaker, I see that it is approaching five. May I now call it five o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker;: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin)-Agriculture-Request for hearings on establishment of national potato marketing agency; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-National Revenue-Effect of new customs regulations on small business; the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Administration of Justice- Charge of rape-Defence of consent-Amendment to Criminal Code.
Postal Service


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.
Item no. 8, in the name of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty); shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of restoring adequate levels of postal service to new residential communities and to guarantee that there will be no further cutbacks in postal service.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion I would like to reflect on some of the history of what has taken place within the postal department. For many years postal service in the country was provided by trains which operated 24 hours a day and seven days a week. As the trains rattled across the country postal workers were busy sorting out the mail and dropping it off in various communities. We have now adopted a new system of carrying the mail; airplanes deliver the mail to various communities. I have visited some of the post offices to see exactly what is taking place.
The reason I put forward this motion is that airplanes are bringing in large bundles of mail, for example, into the Vancouver distribution centre. This centre is unable to handle this mail and to carry out the function of sorting it. When there is an overload mail is bundled up and thrown into a truck which transports it back to the interior to smaller communities. The post offices in these smaller communities are usually understaffed and it is all they can do to carry out the work of servicing the community, let alone carry this extra burden. At one of the post offices I visited there were over 200 pounds of extra mail which had been sent for sorting, which is to be done after the postal workers have carried out their regular duties. This is something which is going on throughout the entire territory.
When something is lost in the post office, and this occurs quite frequently, an investigation is begun. The people are usually told that there is no insurance on their postal package, so there is no compensation available. The postal worker in many cases is held to blame for the poor service.
The introduction of my motion is to serve two purposes, both of which are contained therein. One purpose is to ensure that there are no further cutbacks in postal service; the other is to

July 7, 1980
Postal Service
ensure that all residential communities are guaranteed the same level of postal service.
The post office is a vital institution in our small communities. Small towns do not have the same choice of postal services as are found in large communities. The larger communities, for example, have drugstores which help the post office. Smaller communities do not have home delivery, a service which is found in larger communities. For this reason residents of small towns use their post office much more than do the residents of larger towns. Saturday service is essential to smaller communities because in many cases the people are working away from the smaller towns and come to town on a Saturday specifically to do business with the post office and their shopping. It is imperative to these smaller communities that an all-day Saturday service be made available.
Post office lobbies must be left open after hours so that residents may pick up their mail. I think specifically of a small community like Golden where the post office closes at five o'clock. In Golden many loggers work out in the bush and when they come in after five o'clock they are unable to get into the lobby of the post office in order to get their mail out of the postal box. There have been suggestions that this is because of vandalism in post offices. If that is the case, then we should be looking to the law enforcement agencies. We do not close our stores because there is vandalism, nor should we close the post office. It is strictly a matter of law enforcement. Those postal services should be open for a decent time in the evening so that people may pick up their mail.
I received a commitment from the minister that there would not be such a cutback, but to date the situation has not been corrected. The government must make a commitment not to close post offices in such areas.
Another area at which we must take a serious look is the importance of ensuring that all communities receive the same kind of service. In new subdivisions door to door delivery often ends on one side of the street, and because someone was unfortunate enough to build a new home across the street or a block away, their mail is put in a box which is a half a mile away from the house and they must pick it up. However, these unfortunates pay the same taxes, so they should be given the same opportunities and the same services as the group within the delivery zone. How can the government defend a policy where people on one side of the street receive daily service and people on the other side do not? It should not be a political decision or a decision which is made during an election that there will be postal service to the other side of the street or that postal service will be discontinued if a certain member is elected.
I would like to make a comment on something that was said in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates on June 3. The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) suggested that nobody in Canada should have daily home delivery of mail. He could see no reason why the aged, the infirmed and others less fortunate than himself should not have to trudge through the ice and snow to pick up their mail. That attitude was very disturbing to me, but perhaps more disturbing was the attitude taken by the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), who did not take the position that one would expect from a minister of the Crown. The Postmaster General did not tell the hon. member that daily home delivery of mail in Canada is a service of the Government of Canada which will be defended right down the line. He did not chastise this government member for not seeing that point. On the contrary, he said the following:
If I were to tell you that we will curtail the door to door service which is given, 1 would have a union on my hands tomorrow morning.
It is a shame that the press did not pick up on that remark in committee by the Postmaster General. In this country where the postal unions are blamed even for bad weather, it is certainly interesting to know that they are the only group standing between where we are now and the total elimination of daily home delivery in Canadian cities. Every member in this House, I would venture to say, has received a letter of complaint about the postal service. Petitions with regard to the postal service have been introduced. There is a suggestion in the Speech from the Throne that the Post Office Department will become a Crown corporation in the very near future.
I would urge that this motion be allowed to stand. I ask all hon. members on both sides of the House to give it an opportunity to stand in order that we may look at the management and at what is taking place in the post office. To allow the mismanagement of this department to occur and to blame it on the workers is, I think, a great injustice. This is largely the main problem in the Post Office Department today.
In conclusion, I would point out that no one wants to see the improvement of the postal service come on the backs of the post office workers. Although they were happy with the recent settlement of the CUPW contract, they are concerned that the government may try to improve the service by doubling the workloads, which is hardly the formula for labour peace in the post office. This is not the proper attitude. It is imperative at this time that we zero in on the major problems of the post office. The contract which was signed today includes some changes to the working conditions and privileges of the postal workers. It includes a clause that in the future, if there are lay-offs, there will be replacements, and that if there is to be centralization in larger cities, there will not be cutbacks in the small rural post offices.
We must all recognize the need for postal services, particularly in smaller communities. They must have the services that they require. It was a tremendous saving to move mail transportation from the trains to airplanes. I think we must recognize there have been some savings there. We must also recognize that management of the postal department must be improved and taken out of the political arena. As a Crown corporation it would present estimates to this House for approval and there would be some supervision of the way it carried out its duties and responsibilities.
A short while ago, when we faced the possibility of a labour strike in the post office, I was shocked to learn that the
July 7, 1980

Postmaster General and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) would have had to find a formula to solve the problem. Had they not been able to do so, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) would have become involved as well. This is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. The intent of the motion is to bring about a realization of the serious managerial problems which afflict the post office and of the problems of maintaining service in small communities such as those I represent.
I should like to take a moment or two to deal with the question of mail delivery. I had a complaint recently from a constituent about a letter which took three months to come from England with the news that a relative had passed away. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. 1 have complaints about letters taking as long as a week to come from Creston to Cranbrook, a distance of 60 miles. It is no wonder that some people are taking their business to the courier services and paying exorbitant fees in order to make sure a letter is delivered on time. The post office should recognize the need for prompt delivery and see that it is achieved.
It bothers me, Mr. Speaker, that we in this House are always pointing to the worker as being at fault instead of defining the real problem. The system is at fault when mail is delivered in one spot, trucked back to another, sorted, brought back again and still things are lost and people are told they cannot be reimbursed for them. Often when the mail does finally reach a small community, the post office workers have to work overtime because of the extra workload. When it has been transported, brought back by truck, sorted at time and a half rates, put back on a truck and sent to another community, that is clearly a management problem.
I urge members on both sides of the House to co-operate and not talk out the motion so that it can be dealt with.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revel-stoke (Mr. Parker) introduced this motion because it has finally given me an opportunity to express some of the views stated in letters from my constituents about mail delays. Today I had proposed putting a question on the order paper but this motion gives me an opportunity to put it on the record immediately.
I am not sure if the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) is aware that colour discrimination exists in his department. According to information reaching me from Victoria, the post office there is not giving some letters carrying first-class postage first-class treatment because of the colour of the envelope. Instead, they are getting third-class treatment. This is discrimination on the grounds of colour because the envelope is brown.
May I say facetiously that I suspect the Postmaster General has issued an order insisting that brown envelopes get third-class treatment in order to prevent them reaching members of the opposition so that they can ask questions based on their contents the next day! I am sure that is the reason.
In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker-and I am deadly serious about this-
Postal Service


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Why are you smiling, then?


Donald W. Munro: -in all seriousness, these brown envelopes could contain pension cheques and there could be delays in getting the cheques to the people to whom they are addressed. That would be most unfortunate, of course. Apparently the problem is the yellow colouring on the machine that does the sorting; it does not show up well on the brown envelope. The scanner does not pick it up and so the envelope slips through and there is a delay, resulting in third-class treatment.
While it was something of a joke to allege discrimination on grounds of colour, I think it would be inappropriate if the post office were to insist that all mail in Canada be sent in white envelopes in order to ensure first-class delivery. That would be utterly stupid.
The member who proposed the motion spoke of trains and planes. It sometimes seems to me that even when we use planes rather than trains to send the mail from one place to another, it still gets sorted and delivered slower. The hon. member mentioned that most of us would have had at least one complaint from our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I have had dozens if not hundreds of letters complaining of poor delivery.
This morning a letter was delivered to my office about which I shall write a complaint. It was from the Bank of Montreal in this city. The window envelope was quite clearly addressed to my office on June 23. Somehow it went to Canadian Forces Base, Ottawa, although for the life of me I cannot understand why. Perhaps because it was in a brown envelope it was discriminated against! The postal code for the House of Commons, K1A A19, was clearly shown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 0A6.


Donald W. Munro: My office is in the Confederation Building, so it is probably 0A7.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the same.


Donald W. Munro: We have a separate post office over there so we may have a separate code.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, it is the same.


Donald W. Munro: All right, I will take the hon. member's word for it. The letter went to CFB Ottawa, I suppose because those little yellow, luminous things that are put on the envelope were not picked up by the sorter. Then it went to the post office in the House of Commons. It eventually reached me, about nine days later, having come from the main office of the Bank of Montreal at the corner of Wellington and O'Connor Streets. My office is one block away, at the corner of Wellington and Bank Streets, so it did not even have to go by plane or train.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Perhaps they used a turtle.


Donald W. Munro: That is absolutely unacceptable. We are being adjured, exhorted, asked and urged to

July 7, 198(1
Postal Service
use the postal code to ensure that letters are delivered on time, and now we find that even when it is used they are not being delivered on time.
Other matters relating to the postal service baffle me as well, Mr. Speaker. We are told that it is in good shape. It was in good shape when it was the Royal Mail, but since it ceased to be the Royal Mail it seems to me it is not being handled the way it should be.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is a royal mess.


Donald W. Munro: For example, there are fewer and fewer drop boxes, in my riding anyway. 1 have noticed the disappearance of three or four boxes on the way from my home in Saanich to another part of the area. There was one 1 used to be able to count on right near a little shop where people could pick up a bunch of bananas, a pint of milk-I am sorry, a litre of milk-or a loaf or a kilo of bread. On the way to the shop there used to be a post box where we could mail our letters. It was half way between the one that was at the little post office nearby and at the corner; I would say they were a mile or a kilometre apart. Now it has disappeared.
If anyone ventures to stand up and explain why there should be fewer post boxes than there were, I think the argument that will be used is because they were being vandalized. I will not deny that some of them have been vandalized. Some have had to be bolted to the earth with deep-seated bolts and probably cement blocks below them, but they still get knocked over. I think this is most unfortunate and it is also unacceptable. But the fact remains there are people, particularly elderly people, who have to walk a good deal farther now than they had to before in order to mail their letters. I do not think there is any reason why they should. I do not know what has happened to those boxes. They have disappeared from some locations that I know.
Then we heard the Postmaster General say that there were to be no reductions in services. Within 24 hours of that statement I heard that in one particular area, in an unorganized district beyond my riding but in an area that 1 used to represent, the pickup of letters, which used to be at 6.30 in the evening, is now at 6.30 in the morning. When these letters were picked up at 6.30 in the evening they were taken direct to the Victoria post office to be sorted. That was fine; people could mail at any time during the day. No one complained that toward the end of the day the mail would be picked up. Now the pickup is at 6.30 in the morning and the mail is taken presumably to the collector's house and not delivered until the next morning. Mail is kept by him until the next morning, when it is delivered to Victoria for sorting. So already there is a 24-hour delay in the sorting and distribution of these letters. This is a reduction of service to the people in that area. People used to have their mail picked up in the evening and taken into town for sorting and delivery. Now it is picked up at 6.30 in the morning and not delivered to town for sorting and delivery until later the following day. I suggest that that is a reduction
in service despite what the Postmaster General has tried t(j convince us is a continuation of that great service which th post office owes. I suggest that we ought to make it clear tha the post office owes that service to the Canadian people.
Some of us can remember the day when we used to pu three-ccnt stamps or four-cent stamps on letters and thes letters would be delivered the next day. Now we put 17-cen stamps on a letter and the letter is not delivered until the nex week, even in the same city. Sometimes it is even longer tharB that before a letter is delivered. I cannot speak for rura I deliveries although I am sure somebody will. Some of the rura deliveries are absolutely deplorable.
The main thrust of this motion is that facilities be availabl in new residential areas. 1 quite agree with the proposer of thi motion that it is difficult to explain to people in area B, whitT is right next to area A, that area A will get house to housi delivery while in area B, just across the road, the mail isi dumped in a great big green box at the entrance to the! development. People whose mail is in those big green boxes H have to go out in rain, shine or snow to pick up their mail, yet p their neighbours within hailing distance out of the back window, more or less, have door to door delivery. This is not| the kind of service to give people who arc paying four times a much for stamps as they used to pay. Who knows when the next increase in delivery rates will be.
I made inquiries about this particular operation because it is within my riding. I was told the trouble was that there was only a single entrance to this development. There are all sorts of dead-end streets and having gone in one way you would have to come out the same way. On the other hand, in the other development across the street where the postman goes on foot door to door, he can go in one way and then out at the other end. I find this situation is absolutely impossible.
While the proposer of this motion suggests that it is not the people who are involved in the delivery of the mail who should get the blame, I think a fair amount of the blame should fall on them. Their duty is to deliver the mail. They are being paid to deliver the mail. They are public servants. They should be civil servants. They should be civil and they should serve. That is what they used to be.
Nevertheless, that being said, 1 do agree that this motion is a most timely one. I am sorry that the Postmaster General is not here but I hope someone will bring some of these complaints to his attention, not only with respect to giving adequate delivery to new residential arcas- because people have never had it in the areas of which I speak, that being a little picayune in the use of the words-but also to guarantee that there will be no further cutbacks in service. I suggest that this motion-I am not going to make a formal amendment-could very well have gone further and said that wc ought to return to the proper service of pick up and delivery to which this country has been accustomed.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as both previous speakers have mentioned some personal experience with the
July 7, 1980

post office, I would like to add my own experience with the post office. However, I would like to say that there are people in Canada today who are quick in criticizing the post office but very slow in commending the excellent service that we generally have from the letter carriers. I would like to give them my vote of thanks.
I am pleased to be able to address the two points raised by the hon. member in his motion put down on April 30. We are asked to consider two things: first, the advisability of restoring adequate levels of postal service to new residential communities; second, to guarantee that there will be no further cutbacks in postal service.
The hon. member's first point concerns letter carrier extensions to new residential areas. In the fall of 1975, the post office decided on a freeze on the extension of letter carriers' services across the country. This was part of a general policy of restraint in governmental expenditures which applies to all federal departments. As a result, Canada Post called a halt to extensions of letter carrier service to new subdivisions, thus allowing for existing postal services while observing restraint on spending.
The subdivisions affected by this policy were to be serviced by group letter boxes or through general delivery. However, in the spring of 1979 this policy was amended to allow letter carrier service to 150,000 new points of call. The then postmaster general, now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne), announced at the time that this relaxation would require the reallocation of some $50 million and a letter carrier expansion of 800 new person-years including those required for establishing the new routes. These new points of call reflect the growth of the nation; Atlantic region, 9,171; Quebec region, 11,176; Ontario region, 34,902; Western region, 97,587.
The general policy of fiscal restraint was not abandoned. Canada Post was asked during 1979-80 to reduce costs by $50 million and 1,800 person-years. In October of 1979, the Post Office Department made clear to its managers the policy of zero growth. Canada Post had been called upon, as I said, to reduce over-all person-years, and consequently there could be no growth in letter carrier person-years. New letter carriers could be brought into service only if person-years were freed up through greater efficiency. A letter carrier starting policy was to be adhered to. Overstructured routes were to be given first priority, that is, "walks" which are deemed to be too large-equivalent to more than eight hours work. These are to be adjusted. Next, "fill-ins" and "extensions" will be covered. "Fill-ins", I might explain, are deliveries to new houses in the midst of existing letter carrier routes, and "extensions", as the name implies, are continuations of existing letter carrier walks. New letter carrier walks can be established only after the Post Office has used its redeployed person-years for, first, the relief of overstructured walks, and, second, to service fill-ins and extensions.
Postal Service
Thus, Canada Post does not impose a freeze on letter carrier extensions; it has to comply with a policy of person-year restraint which, in effect, results in great difficulty in coping with population expansion in rapid growth areas, especially in the western provinces.
In Calgary, I am told, more than 2,000 new residents arrive each month and expect to receive letter carrier delivery to their homes. The Post Office would have difficulty keeping pace with such unprecedented growth even if it had carte blanche for hiring and expansion. The is the additional problem of worker turnover in Calgary because of the competition by employers for workers. A staff turnover of between 65 per cent and 70 per cent continues to be a major problem at the processing plant. Full-time vacancies in any given week average 15, and most employees have less than one year's experience. The new collective agreement with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers now provides a badly needed competitive wage.
Subject to the restraints I have already outlined, the postal people are coping with Calgary's drastic increase in mail volume through alternative means. Number 10 postal depot, Calgary's busiest, has about 1,000 people dropping in daily to pick up their mail. Things were even busier there a year ago when 2,000 callers were coming in to depot 10. But Canada Post opened another depot, number 15, which provided a closer pick-up point for residents of The Properties area. Also, through efficiency and free-ups, the Post Office has been able to establish two new letter-carrier walks in the depot 15 area since May.
Normal office hours for a depot are from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. and, if respected, would make it impossible or difficult at best for many customers to pick up their mail. The majority of the residents around depot 10 are young married couples in situations where both partners are working, and for their convenience the staff comes on duty at 6.15 in the morning to open the depot unofficially.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) perhaps summarized the situation better than anyone when he appeared last month before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and I should like to put his words on record here.
Post Office officials have been put on very severe constraint. On the one hand, the two previous governments, first the Liberal administration and then the Conservative administration, have made an effort to reduce the number of person-years within the Civil Service and have asked specifically for some reductions in the normal growth of the person-years within the Post Office which has indeed created severe difficulties for the Post Office which is a service department and which indeed had to cope with the demand and the growth of our population in Canada. Secondly, this department has also been asked by the two previous administrations, the Conservative one and the Liberal one before that, to curtail their expenditures and try to reduce the important deficits this department is incurring year after year. Under these very difficult situations I am happy to report... that the administrators of the Post Office have done a magnificent job in trying to cope with the demand, continue the services where needed and indeed reduce substantially the deficits.
The hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) asked for a guarantee from the government that there would be no further cutbacks in postal service. Mr. Speaker, our national postal service has important social goals and

July 7, 1980
Postal Service
Canadians are entitled to expect good service, but different situations may require different methods of delivering that service. I, too, remember when we had letter carrier service to our homes on Saturdays. But that ended when Eric Kierans was postmaster general and tried to put the Post Office on a pay-for-itself basis. And prior to 1951, not only did the postman ring twice-he delivered twice a day. It is not realistic to think there will be no future changes, or no changes which the hon. member and, indeed, the general public, would not regard as cutbacks in postal service. But I can assure the hon. member that the present administration is doing everything within its power to avoid cutbacks. The proposal to merge the postal districts of Saskatchewan and Manitoba well illustrates this concern.
A study was made of a proposal to merge the Manitoba and Saskatchewan district offices into one. Its purpose was to reduce substantially person-years within both offices and to lessen expenditures. During April and May questions were asked and motions put forward both by the official opposition and by the hon. member's own colleagues. Finally, on May 26, the Postmaster General announced in the House that he had instructed his officials to make no change. Again, I should like to read from the minutes of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. The Postmaster General, speaking of the proposed merger, had this to say:
Objections were raised by a number of people in Saskatchewan. The interpretation they gave to this was that it would mean a reduction in Post Office activities in the province. I must say that everything that has been written and said about this has been grossly exaggerated, and obviously it is too bad. This move, which was a genuine one on the part of the regional general manager for the Post Office in western Canada, was not at all meant to reduce or to diminish the service of Canada Post in Saskatchewan; quite the contrary.
Because this sound management approach was so badly misinterpreted, I had to say bluntly the other day in the House that this project was cancelled in order to end any misapprehension and misunderstanding about it. Any way we tried to cope with this was obviously very badly misinterpreted, and I did not want the people of Saskatchewan to think the federal government, the government of Ottawa, was again trying to undercut the legitimate aspirations of the people of Saskatchewan. I regret very much some of the interpretation that has been given to what was a sound basic management approach to reductions of our top level representations in western Canada.
I want to conclude by saying that the Saskatchewan district is going to continue. There is no doubt about it; it will continue. We will obviously have to look again at how we can cope with this demand that still exists on Canada Post to reduce person-years and to reduce our expenditures. How we are going to do it is not yet determined, but indeed our constraint on the operation of the Post Office is still there.
Another cutback which has recently been discussed is the question of Saturday closings of post offices. As I said earlier, Saturday home delivery was ended a dozen years ago when Eric Kierans attempted to put the Post Office on a pay-for-itself basis. He saw the movement toward a five-day business week, wanted to give letter carriers the five-day week then common to other Canadian workers, and proposed to save some SI3 million in the first year of this cutback. Also proposed was a cutback to five-day service for all post offices. However, this was modified to provide continued Saturday service for those centres not receiving letter carrier delivery.
In those days the Post Office deficit was around $50 million. In 1979 it was $474 million, and thus it should not be surprising that once again Saturday closings have been under study as a means of reversing the trend of mounting deficits. To quote the hon. Postmaster General, again in committee:
-in most locations, our front-counter services are open to the public on a six days per week basis. This, in fact, requires a complement of staff adequate to cover the six days, and that is done on a shift basis. In an effort to try to cope with the general, broad directives that Canada Post receives from the government . . . from both previous governments, Conservatives and Liberals-to reduce person-years and to reduce expenditures, some discussions and studies were carried out in order to find ways to reduce these factors, because it means that in smaller centres, the local postmaster must work six days per week. So this idea of closing on Saturday was studied. There is an alternative to it. Basically if we conclude that it would have to be, as it is in most major cities, a five days per week operation, a decision might be taken locally to decide on another day and, possibly, a small post office would not close on a Saturday because, basically, Saturday in these small towns has some significance, and it is important that the post office be open then. So, the alternative discussed presently with the CPAA is the possibility of having these small post offices close on another day of the week. However, we have not yet reached any final conclusion; this is only the subject of discussions and studies by our people and by the representatives of the Canadian Postmasters Association.
In conclusion, I think we should regard the Post Office as an arm of government struggling to maintain an adequate level of service to the Canadian people, yet concerned about keeping costs down. During a decade of double digit international inflation Canada Post saw mail volumes increase by 35 per cent and brought service to the most remote reaches as well as to the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas. It has not been easy, and we should regard the effort as ongoing, and commendable.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the hon. member for introducing the motion. This is one of the few opportunities we have to say something in this House about the service we have been getting from a Crown agency called the Post Office. My city of Mississauga has the privilege of having the largest postal warehouse in all of Canada. Indeed, the statement around my riding is that the reason we pay 17 cents is that ten cents is to finance storage at Gateway and 7 cents is for delivery.
People throughout Canada-I am sure this applies in your riding, Mr. Speaker, as it does in the parliamentary secretary's riding-are very disturbed about the inadequate, incompetent and inept service they receive from their Post Office. It bothers me that hard-working individuals who work for our Post Office are afraid to tell their neighbours that they are employees of the Post Office Department because of the reputation of that organization.
Studies have indicated clearly that the management of the Post Office is probably the worst management of any organization, not just of this size but of almost any organization in the whole of the country. It should be impossible for the parliamentary secretary, who just finished speaking, to say, as she did, that things are improving in Calgary or in western Canada, perhaps, and to apologize for the lack of Saturday delivery.
We want delivery, and the fact that post offices are not open on Saturday as they used to be, and the fact that we do not get
July 7, 1980

delivery twice a day as we used to get, are not the real issue. The issue is that we want delivery, period. Hon. members of this House find that their mail takes seven to ten days to be delivered. They send out householders, as I did in March, only to find that they are delivered in late April. Individual citizens throughout Canada continue to call us and complain about lack of service, delay in service, missing deliveries, and destroyed packages. When we have all these complaints, there is something serious.
My constituency office in Mississauga receives its stationery and other material for distribution through the use of the Post Office. These materials are delivered to my constituency office from Ottawa. Frequently the material is put into a mail bag and delivered to my office in the mail bag. What happens is that a good part of the stationery arrives completely destroyed, to the point that my executive assistant in my constituency office the other day telephoned our local postmaster and said, "I am very pleased to hear that you have a new elephant." He was abashed and asked, "What do you mean a new elephant? We do not have an elephant at all". My executive assistant said, "You must have an elephant; how else could you possibly destroy five boxes of new stationery?" There is something wrong here, and the hon. member's motion allowing this debate in the House today is very appropriate.
Hardly a day goes by when hon. members or their constituency offices do not have to listen to the complaints of constituents concerning the mail, to the point that one just throws up his hands and says, "Well, that is the way it is; something must be done." Business, hon. members of this House and, indeed, government departments here refuse to use the postal service. If they really want something delivered they call upon Air Canada or Purolator, but they do not call on the Post Office because they know that this organization which we support to the extent of well in excess of $400 million a year, over and above postal charges, is not competent to ensure delivery of any article to anywhere from anywhere. That is a pretty disturbing thing.
There has to be a better way, and some better ways are available. Let me say this to members of the Post Office through you, sir, that there is such a thing as an electronic transfer of funds, there is such a thing as transmitting messages by wire, by radio, by cable, and by video. There have been studies done by this government with regard to the transfer of pension cheques, of payroll cheques and all other transmissions which this government does, ranging from family allowances to pension cheques, to the bank accounts of individuals by electronic transfer. That very program would save some 60,000 jobs in the public service. That very program would ensure the delivery of pension cheques. It would ensure that John Brown, who never received his war veterans allowance last week, would have it on June 30 in his bank account where it belongs, and would not have to call his member of Parliament or the pension office to find out what happened to it.
Postal Service
This situation has gone on for long enough. If members working in the Post Office, if management in the Post Office, and if the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) himself cannot get his act together and provide the kind of service that we Canadians used to enjoy and should still enjoy, then other methods of transmitting information by the government transferring funds and by business transferring funds, will have to be employed. There are other methods, which might be somewhat costly, but the way things are going the Post Office should get its act together very quickly or it need not exist in this country.


Mr. Louis R. Desmarais (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address myself to the motion of the hon. member with regard to the Post Office. He used the phrases "restoring adequate levels of postal service" and "no further cutbacks in postal service" in a manner which would have us believe that service levels at the Post Office are woefully inadequate. That is an assumption which is not borne out by facts. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the meaning of the hon. member's motion. He used the phrase "restoring adequate levels of postal service" as if there had existed in the past a veritable golden age in the mails. This attitude reflects a complete disregard for present day realities. It reflects a mentality which does not examine facts.
The hon. member talks of "restoring adequate levels of postal service". The facts of the matter are that never before in its long and distinguished history has Canada Post provided such a high level of performance and reliability in the mails as it does today. The hon. member says "restore adequate levels of service". I submit that the word "restore" signifies to go back and do over again. To what period in Canadian history would the hon. member have the Post Office return-to the age of the horse when relays of ponies galloped between towns carrying the mail bags? Or perhaps he would have the Post Office go back to the age of steam when the great iron horses first thundered across this great country carrying messages that would link and bind it together?
I am not suggesting that, in its long history of contributing to the social, political, artistic and commercial fabric of the nation, the Post Office was not well served by the horse, train and truck, not at all. The Post Office always has availed itself of the best technology of the day. That is its tradition, a tradition of adapting to change and exploiting new and better ways of doing things.
I sketched this brief history of the mails to put the Post Office in perspective. It is in the best interests of us all that we look at the operation of the mails objectively, without sentiment, and without lamenting the past, as the hon. member has done, or of conceiving extravagant hopes for the future. Unless we bring a balanced perspective in examining the Post Office, we will lose sight of what we can do to improve it and what we cannot do. The fact of the matters is that the Post Office has now entered the satellite and electronic age. It has become modern. We cannot, as the hon. member suggests, "go back and restore".

Postal Service
In the interests of time I should like to refer to an episode with regard to Canada Post to which originally I wanted to refer toward the end of my intervention, and which I do not want to omit. I want to focus on this episode at Canada Post which I believe illustrates clearly its performance and the performance to which Canadians have become accustomed. Only a few weeks ago several thousands of the more than two and one quarter million family allowance cheques which the government sends out monthly did not arrive on the appointed day in a number of communities in Ontario. Immediately there was a public outcry over the delay. Let me hasten to add that the outcry began before the delay was one day old. Such is the Post Office's performance that the public has, over a sustained period of time, come to expect that family allowance cheques arrive on time as a matter of course. I think these high expectations reflect an extremely efficient postal service.
The family allowance episode illustrates another phenomenon about the Post Office, that is, that as we get still better we can expect still more criticism. This might seem like a paradox, but it is not. It is a matter of higher expectations. Shortcomings in the mails which were tolerated patiently in the past as being inevitable, seem unendurable as soon as the idea of solving them crosses people's minds. All the shortcomings then removed call attention to those that remain, and now they appear more galling. The shortcomings, it is true, have been reduced, but sensibility to them has become more acute. A generation ago, before the advent of the jet aeroplane, a one day delay of the cheques in the mail would have passed unnoticed. That is not the case today. We live in an era dominated by electronics and the computer. The public have come to expect the same almost semi-automatic results in the mails that they get from electronic gadgetry and from the computers. This is impossible in such a labour-intensive business as the Post Office. Nevertheles, our Canada Post levels of service compare favourably with any post office in the western world.
I do not lament the past as does the hon. member who would, as I said in my introduction, "restore" the post office. I do not share any such romantic notions about returning to the days of steam and the horse. I am, however, inspired by the recent achievements of Canada Post. These achievements inspire our staff to provide Canadians with a postal service second to none. The Post Office is not restoring, it is advancing. Let me tell you about a few of these advances.
In 1948 intercity mail went to air. That is, all first class mail went air mail. We were one of the first countries in the world to enter the air age totally and completely. Now, of course, all innovations are not without some shortcomings. At times fog over St. John's or a whiteout over Inuvik would prevent the aeroplane carrying the mail from landing, sometimes for a day or two. But is that an argument for going back to the horse and buggy?
In reviewing where the Post Office has been and where it is headed, I would remind the hon. member that we no longer
July 7, 1980
live in a letter writing age. It would be inconceivable for our age to produce a Voltaire whose letters in the Besterman edition come to more than 100 volumes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill S-6, to amend the Two-Price Wheat Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, before five o'clock I mentioned the fact that it has been a long time-as a matter of fact it has been seven years-since the price of wheat could be discussed in the House of Commons. This bill was introduced by the previous Liberal administration and called Bill C-24, once under the legislation of the Progressive Conservative government called Bill C-7, and we have it here in the form of a Senate bill, Bill S-6. It is interesting that it has taken over two years for this bill to come on the floor of the House, to deal with something that is as important to the producers of western Canada as what they receive per bushel for grain.
1 should like to answer a few questions in my own mind as to why this bill is here. Is it for the wheat producers of western Canada? Is it for the consumer? I do not think it is for either of those groups. It is to remove the liability of the present Liberal government to the tune of $200 million which it owes the farmers of western Canada and which will legally become due before July 31 of this year. This is a lot of money. We are talking about a drought in western Canada. There was a lot of hullabaloo and a lot of hoopla as to a possible $60 million pay-out to the producers of western Canada, in the cattle business, because of the drought. Here we have a bill by which this government is attempting to remove its legal obligation to the tune of some $200 million, three times what it is purport-
July 7, 1980

ing to give the cattlemen and wheat producers of western Canada.
When the Two-Price Wheat Act was first introduced in the House in 1974 by Otto Lang, he said the following:
This is a bill whose specific purpose is to enshrine for a period of years, in this ase for seven years, a procedure whereby the treasury supplements payments made for wheat designed for human consumption in Canada-
It is in its present form without any doubt and, I should think without any argument, in the nature of a consumer subsidy, an amount paid by the treasury, on behalf of the people of Canada as taxpayers, to lighten the burden on the consumer of the cost of wheat products in Canada.
Those were the comments of Otto Lang when it was introduced for second reading on October 29, 1974.
What happened with the introduction of that bill was that the wheat producers or the farmers of western Canada had the price of their wheat frozen for seven years. It was seven years that this bill was to run. I do not know of any other contract with longshoremen, Post Office workers or any other labour group, which goes for a term of seven years.


An hon. Member:: Oil pricing agreements.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: They may not run that long if things continue. But what happened with this bill is that the prices the farmers of western Canada were to receive from 1974 onwards were frozen. We felt at that time that it was unjust and we feel at this time that it is unjust, particularly when not carrying through on the commitment of seven years.
In the fall of 1978 the Liberal government of that day decided to terminate the subsidy payment to the producers in western Canada. Instead of a fixed domestic price and a subsidy payment, the regulations of the Canadian Wheat Board were used, setting the price farmers would receive for grain consumed domestically. At that time it was set at a price of $4 per bushel as the floor, and $5 per bushel at the upper end. That was the price in respect of spring wheat. In the case of Durum the regulations set the price at a floor of $4 per bushel up to $7.50. We cannot understand the difference in treatment in respect of Durum and spring wheat; we could not at the time and we can not now.
Without Bill S-6, to advance the termination date of November 30, 1978, instead of the end of July, 1980, which obligated this government to pay the producer what he has been receiving since December 1, 1978, directly from the marketplace, and without this retroactive termination of this bill, the government would in effect owe the farmers of western Canada $200 million.
Let us discuss, as we were doing at the beginning, whether this was a subsidy to the farmers of western Canada or a subsidy to the consumers of Canada. The transfer of income under the two-price wheat program from 1969 to 1978 amounted to $396 million from the taxpayer to the consumer, but from the taxpayer to the producer it amounted to $75 million, from the consumer to the producer it represented $40 million, and from the producer to the consumer it represented
Two-Price Wheat Act
an additional $35 million. Just using those numbers, $150 million was received by the producers, but $396 million was received by the consumers of Canada.
In addition, in the first four months of the 1979-80 crop year producers have subsidized the consumers another estimated $22 million. Furthermore, since the summer of 1979 producers have subsidized consumers up to $1 million a week.
This bill as introduced in 1974, and as we are discussing it today, is not subsidy to the farmers of western Canada, it is subsidy to the consumers of Canada. The cost of production is what a farmer is concerned about. If it cost him "x" to produce a bushel of grain and if he could make "x" plus, he considers that a profit, as any businessman would.
This government in 1974 refused to include indexing provisions for the cost of production in this bill. When the legislation was brought in, the price of wheat was around $6 a bushel. Today the price of wheat in Vancouver is $6.73 a bushel. It is strange how things go back. Durum today in Thunder Bay, or 1 should say at Vancouver, sells for $8.14 a bushel. Right now the farmer in Canada is receiving $5 a bushel for spring wheat consumed in Canada. If he were exporting it he would be exporting it at $6.73 per bushel.
"With levels which are still to this day pretty well close to record, we decided we should look at the proposition as between the Canadian Wheat Board on the one hand, other producers of wheat in Canada, and the consumers of Canada as represented by the buyers, millers and users. We decided we should enter into an arrangement whereby there would be a range of prices for grain; for wheat used for human consumption with a range that reflected more adequately than anything before the cost of production to consumers." That was said by Otto Lang in 1974. There has not been anything done to rectify the provision in this bill which does not recognize that the cost of production is what the farmer is concerned about. If he is going to sell wheat in Canada at a set price, a price set for a seven-year term, surely there should be some provision that, as times changed, he would be compensated for the increase in the cost of production.
The special adviser to the minister of state responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, the senator in waiting and twice defeated candidate for Assiniboia, at that time said:
-it has been argued that this legislation should reflect specifically costs of production. 1 think that kind of suggestion is somewhat inappropriate in a discussion on a two-price wheat system for wheat.
I would certainly hope that gentleman has changed his mind today, seven years later. It is very appropriate that the cost of production be considered in any pricing arrangement which ties people to a contract over a period of time as this measure tied the farmers for seven years.
In 1974 the member for Assiniboia at that time said:
-if conditions change drastically, as well they may, between now and 1980, if there is a downturn in the grain market-as grain producers of western Canada realize might happen-the figure provided for in the bill can be changed by this House to keep it in line with real circumstances.
At no time since this bill was passed in 1974 have members of Parliament had the opportunity to discuss the price of wheat

July 7, 1980
Two-Price Wheat Act
for domestic consumption. Even now there is no consultation between the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board and the government.
I would like briefly to refer to Senate Debates, May 29, where the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Argue) said he had made inquiries and had been informed that the advisory committee was not asked in any formal way to pass judgment on or to state its opinion about this policy. That is really not what the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board should be used for. That advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board is a duly elected body to represent the producers of western Canada and to advise the Wheat Board as to its feelings on government legislation affecting farmers.
Asked why the government had not considered any steps to go back to at least this crop year or the last half of this crop year in order to supply the farmers of western Canada with an adequate income by removing the $5 ceiling per bushel of wheat consumed domestically, the minister of state said he did not consider that a question the government was then considering, or in fact should be considering, because it would be setting forth policy and would obviously be something of a risk to producers. It certainly would be something of a risk to producers. The minister went on to say that to have a fixed price is a benefit to producers and is also a benefit to consumers. I really do not know how it is a benefit, when we look at history over the last seven years, to the grain producers of western Canada.
I should like to draw the attention of members to the price that will be paid into the Wheat Board's fund at any given time by Canadian millers, which is at the export price for 13'/2 per cent protein wheat, so that wheat producers can look forward in the next two years to a price for wheat sold to millers for domestic consumption ranging between $5 and $7 a bushel. That has reference to the new price for wheat consumed in Canada. The farmers in western Canada will receive between $5 and $7 a bushel.
Earlier I stated that right now in Vancouver wheat is selling for $6.73 per bushel. We have not reached the end of this crop year and the start of the next crop year, when this agreement is to come into effect, and already we are within 27 cents of being at the limit, so that the consumers will be subsidized once again by the producers of Canada for their consumption of grain.
I mentioned the 13.5 per cent protein level. Something very strange has happened with regard to protein. The elevator companies said that it was too difficult for them to put in place protein testers which would allow them to buy and sell grain at a protein level, that it was very expensive and something which they could not afford. It may be too expensive for the elevator companies, but the producers of western Canada have been asked to supply $1.5 million. They have been asked to supply
this money through a check-off of 75 cents a ton, in order that the elevator companies can buy this testing equipment.
At the same time the producers are being asked to pay 75 cents a ton to supply this testing equipment for the elevator companies, there is no provision anywhere in the legislation or in the grading system of the Canadian Grain Commission which says that farmers will be compensated for protein. In the next crop year there is no compensation provided to the farmers of western Canada for additional protein. During the similar debate in 1974 members on the opposition side warned the government that they should include an indexing provision for the cost of production or, as an alternative, that it shorten the seven years for which the farmers would be tied in.

On October 29, 1974, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), said, as it is quoted in Hansard at page 865:
-this bill lacks an effective measure to take into consideration the increased costs of production. Therefore we would recommend to the minister the implementation of such a provision to reflect the rising costs of production over the seven-year period.
It seems strange to those of us in western Canada that there are two products which are sold at below world price levels on the domestic market. Both those products come from western Canada. One of the products is wheat, and it is sold at less than the export price to the consumers in Canada. Of course the other commodity is oil. We in the west find that very strange. I am sure that if most of the people-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: We have oil and wheat in Ontario.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: -were to make the comparison, they would find it very strange as well. I hear some members on the government side saying that that is part of what is called Canada. Let us talk about what being a part of Canada has cost the people of western Canada with regard to those two products. For example, since 1973 the province of Alberta has subsidized the consumers of oil in Canada by $17 billion. The province of Saskatchewan has subsidized the people of Canada by $3 billion in oil. That may be part of Canada and part of being a Canadian, but what we in the west do not quite understand is why it must be two products which come from our region of the country that are sold at less than the world price.
This situation is causing some problems and deep thoughts with regard to being a Canadian by many people in my region. I am sure that no member in this House likes to hear that such thinking is carrying on or would want it to continue. The hon. member for Vegreville was aware of the problem which was facing the western farmers. When he was a minister in the previous government of May, 1979, he sought and received cabinet approval to set the price of domestic grain at a floor of $6 per bushel. As a matter of fact, that is $2 above the floor which is presently in effect, and $1 above the floor which will be in effect next crop year.
This proposal was to take effect February 1, 1980. Unfortunately there was an election and the present government has

*July 7, 1980
*since refused to accept this proposal or to look at any means of
*	compensating producers in western Canada in this crop year. I
*	do not expect hon. members to take my word, and therefore I
*	would like to quote from the Western Producer which was
*	issued on February 28, 1980. The article quotes the commis-Isioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Charles Gibbings,
*	who said:
P The federal election campaign and change in government have delayed Iplanned changes to the act, Gibbings said. He said the maximum was to have
*	been changed by February 1 by former wheat board minister Don Mazankowski,
*	but that couldn't be done once the government was defeated and an election I called.
*	I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact
*	that the announcement of the new domestic price for wheat in
*	the 1980-81 crop year was set by regulation. Members of this
*	House have not had and will not have an opportunity to debate
*	that price. It will be implemented next crop year. The increase
*	of $5 was set as a floor for domestic wheat with a maximum of I $7. However, no maximum was set for the producers of I Durum wheat. I find it very difficult to understand that, when I farmers of Durum wheat make the same number of rounds in la field and require the same equipment to combine Durum I wheat as is required for spring wheat. There is no provision in *the present two-price system which will be put into effect in 11980-81 to link the cost which the farmers of western Canada I receive for their product consumed in Canada to the cost of *production.
i I would like to speak on the cost of production for a Imoment. From 1973 to the second quarter of 1979 the cost of Itotal farm input has risen by 80.6 per cent. The index for crop I production expenses- seed, fertilizers, pesticides and so on- I has increased by 105 per cent. Fertilizer alone has increased I by 115 per cent and agricultural chemicals by 168 per cent. I Producers are now in jeopardy because this act will cover two
*	years and has no provision to index the cost of production.
I I have before me some figures put together by the hon. I member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), and they are Ivery interesting. In the calculations, the hon. member used 11961 as the base year and indexed it at 100. Then he deflated I the actual prices for barley, wheat, hogs and cattle back to the I year 1930 and inflated them forward to the year 1980. He I used the same base of 100 for costs. If we deflate and go I backwards, we find that in 1930 a bushel of barley, which was I worth 80 cents in 1961, based on 100, would have been worth I $1.42 at that time, even though the actual price was only 59 I cents.
| If we carry that ahead to 1980, we find that the same bushel I of barley for which the Wheat Board is now paying $1.71 at I the farm gate or $2.57 at Thunder Bay, has an actual value,
I based on 1961, of only 63 cents. The farmer receives 63 cents a Ibushel based on those values. In 1979 the actual price for I wheat at Thunder Bay was $6.09, and based on a 1961 index of 1100, the actual price would be only $1.48. For hogs, the actual I price in 1979 was $64.24, and based upon the 1961 index, it Iwould be $21.45. For beef cattle the actual price was $78.38, land on the basis of the 1961 index it would be $28.82. If we [index everything else, why do we not consider indexing the
Two-Price Wheat Act
costs to producers of grain consumed in Canada? Why do we not look at that? There cannot be anything against it. There can be no reason why they cannot be treated the same as other groups.
This government and the party it represents has just come back from a convention in western Canada, where I am sure a lot of concern was expressed by people in my region, and I am sure it was listened to as well. I hope that party paid attention to the problems of getting the Prince Rupert project under way and the lack of site preparation this year which will probably delay the project until next year. I hope also that attention was paid to the ridiculous statement of the assistant to the minister in the other place, about the initial price for grain. In view of the world price for grain today there is no justification for lowering the initial price by 50 cents per bushel. In a time of high interest rates and increased cost of production this shows a tremendous lack of sensitivity and understanding.
Another matter of concern in the west is the question of rail lines. Whereas we in this party protected 60 per cent of the lines recommended for abandonment by the last Liberal government, there is now some concern that these lines are to be reviewed and that some 7,500 producers in western Canada will be affected. I hope those concerns were expressed to the ministers and the government. We certainly tried to make them aware of the situation.
In Lacadena, in my constituency, the Sakatchewan Wheat Pool has emptied the existing elevator and has plans to build a new one, so people are very concerned about the future of that line. In the town of Coleville the same company has made a commitment to build a new elevator facility and we are concerned about the government's plans for those branch lines.
Every year just before April-although this year it is a little later-a booklet is issued to producers. It is called "1981 Crop Year Guide Initial Payments, Quota Guarantees, Recommended Seeded Acreage". This booklet, which arrived in May, recommended that producers in western Canada should not increase their acreage of wheat but keep it at the existing level. There would be a minimum 10-bushel quota. The producers and businessmen farmers of western Canada can only base their judgment on the information they are given by the Canadian Wheat Board or whoever is responsible for this booklet. I would not want whoever is responsible for this forecast to be looking after my business. At the moment there is the open quota on wheat. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the drought or seed planted in May of this year. It has to do with the grain accumulated last year.
Farmers are inclined to believe this booklet which, by the way, was not issued by the Canadian Wheat Board, which has been accused at times of making mistakes. I should like to know who was responsible for this publication. I stand to be corrected, but I think it is the grains group that issued this information which misled the farmers of western Canada. Rather than growing wheat, they diversified into other crops, with the result that not only do they lose but the country loses

July 7, 198
Two-Price Wheat Act
in terms of balance of payments. The Canadian Wheat Board is having trouble with the system of orderly marketing and next year things will be worse because of this misinformation.
I am sure the minister is interested in this matter so I should like him to find out who is issuing this information. Where does it come from? He could ask his assistant in the other place about it.
I hope I have explained to some hon. members who really do not understand-and, of course, I do not understand too much about their business either-that the farmers of western Canada are being asked to carry a tremendous burden for the consumers of Canada. 1 do not think that is fair, and I am sure no member of the House thinks so either. I hope, in light of these numbers, and statements that will be made by my colleagues on this side of the House, that we can change the domestic price for wheat so that it is true reflection of the cost of production that the farmers of western Canada need if they are to continue to be a viable industry.
1 see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is now in his place, Mr. Speaker. 1 hope he will look into the matter of the $200 million set out in this bill, and we would sacrifice the supposed $60 million in drought payments that may be made some time in the next 18 months, to the cattle producers of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill S-l which in effect repeals the Two-Price Wheat Act on July 31, 1980, or an earlier date to be fixed by declaration-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bill S-6.


Douglas Charles Neil: Or, on a retroactive basis, to amend the act, specifically section 3 thereof, which reduces the term of the bill from a period of July 1, 1974 to June 30, 1980, of July 1, 1974, to November 30, 1978 as it relates to the designated area within the Wheat Board.
The two-price wheat system was introduced in 1974 by the then minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Hon. Otto Lang. In the debate on the bill on October 29, 1974, the minister said, as reported at page 863 of Hansard:
This is a bill whose specific purpose is to enshrine for a period of years, in this case for seven years, a procedure whereby the treasury supplements payments made for wheat designed for human consumption in Canada.
And further down the same page there appears this statement:
It is in its present form without any doubt and, 1 should think without any argument, in the nature of a consumer subsidy, an amount paid by the treasury, on behalf of the people of Canada as taxpayers, to lighten the burden on the consumer of the cost of wheat products in Canada.
I should like to emphasize the words "seven years" and the words "the nature of a consumer subsidy". In effect, the bill placed a ceiling price on Red Spring wheat of $5 per bushel for domestic consumption, and at the same time it fixed the floor price for the same wheat at $3.25 per bushel. In the case of Durum wheat the ceiling price was $7.50 per bushel and the
floor price was $5.75. In other words, the millers and consum ers of domestic grain were able to purchase Red Spring whea and Durum wheat at the floor price, and the treasury-whic' in effect is the taxpayers of Canada-paid to the Canadia Wheat Board on behalf of the consumer, a subsidy which wa the difference between the floor price and the world wheat price, up to a maximum of $1.75 per bushel.
I should like to make it perfectly clear to members of th House that the $1.75 per bushel was not a subsidy to the grain producer because he was asked, indeed, forced to sell on the domestic market at less than he could sell at on the world market. He was simply paid the difference by the treasury up to a maximum of $1.75. If the price of wheat on the world market went above the ceiling prices of $5 in the case of Red Spring and $7.50 in the case of Durum, and it did so on several occasions, the producer of the grain was then subsidizing the consumers of Canada for the difference between the ceiling price and the actual world market price.
Up to the end of 1978 this producer subsidy amounted t some $35 million. If you examine the records, you will find fo the first four months of the 1979-80 crop year the wheat producers' subsidy to the consumers of Canada was some $22 million. Since January 1 the subsidy by the western grain producers to the consumers in Canada has been approximately $1 million per week.
We have only two products in Canada which come under a two-price system and both of these products come from western Canada. They are wheat and oil. There is nothing moving into western Canada, either from central Canada or other parts of Canada, at less than the market price. Over the years, western Canadians have subsidized the consumers of oil to the tune of approximately $20 billion. In the case of wheat, the western grain producers have subsidized the consumers of Canada in the last six or seven years to the tune of about $80 million. Is there any wonder that there is a feeling of alienation in the west and a strong feeling of separatism? This feeling is not just on the part of fringe groups or radicals. As I travel through my constituency I find that many responsible and respected people raise this issue with me. They mention that perhaps westerners would be better off if they went it alone. So it can be seen that the seeds of separatism have been sown and they cannot be ignored.
I said earlier in quoting the Hon. Otto Lang, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board when he submitted this bill for second reading, that the bill was for a period of seven years. The New Democratic Party supported the government in this regard. At that time this party, the official opposition, submitted an amendment to have the bill run only until 1977 rather than 1980. It was the Hon. Jack Horner, who was then on this side of the House, who submitted that amendment. I would like to read one paragraph of what he said when he submitted the amendment. This is recorded at page 5538 of the May 6, 1975, edition of Hansard, as follows:
July 7, 1980

This bill locks the wheat producer into a seven-year agreement. I cannot overemphasize that. Everyone in this House has witnessed several labour negotiations. 1 can recite the railway negotiations, the longshoremen on the west coast, grain handlers and longshoremen on the St. Lawrence, and so on. None of them relate to a seven-year contract.
He concluded by saying:
What has this Parliament got against wheat producers? Why lock them into a fixed price for their commodity?
As I said, he proposed an amendment to reduce the term by three years. And, as I said, the New Democratic Party were quick to point out that it was kind of nice to lock the farmers in for seven years, but they find now that the government, for some reason or another, did decide to terminate the subsidy in 1978. The seven-year period under the bill would run out July 31, 1980.
The problem is that the grain producers of western Canada under that bill carried out their part of the bargain. It was the government in the fall of 1978 which decided to terminate the subsidy payment to the consumers. As of November 30, 1978, the government ceased to make any further payments under the bill. The government did not come to Parliament and tell members that things were tough; that the government was going on an austerity program; that the two-price system was costing about $100 million a year and that the treasury just could not afford it. The government did not suggest that we review the program to see what we could do about it. Alternatively, the government could easily have complied with subsection 3 of section 5 of the Two-Price Wheat Act which reads as follows:
The minister shall, on an annual basis and in consultation with the producers, review the provisions of this act and all related regulations enacted by the governor in council with a view to making such recommendations to the governor in council as are appropriate in the light of prevailing costs of production of wheat and returns to producers.
The government did neither of these things. In the arrogant and high-handed manner which has characterized the Liberal government for so many years, it arbitrarily discontinued paying the subsidy. It broke the law in the same manner as you and I might break the law if we refused to pay our income tax, or if the wheat producers in western Canada delivered grain to other than the Canadian Wheat Board. If we had done that, we would have been punished; the producer would have been punished. He would have been fined, and possibly he would have been sent to jail.
But what does the government do? The government says that it is above the law. It says that about $200 million is owed and we are legally bound to pay it. We could be sued, but really there is no problem. We will simply pass a bill with retroactive effect which says that, despite the fact the two-price system was to be in effect for a period of seven years until 1980, the program came to an end on November 30, 1978, the day when the government decided that it would no longer make any payments under the act.
This is what the bill is all about, Mr. Speaker. We are asked to pass on a bill which, under section 3, says:
This act shall be deemed to have come into force on December 1, 1978.
Two-Price Wheat Act
We are here tonight debating a bill submitted by the government which it says is "deemed to have come into force on December 1, 1978." This is some one and a half years ago. We are being asked to make legal the illegal acts of this Liberal government and to wipe the record clean, in other words give it an unconditional discharge.
But, Mr. Speaker, though we are repealing the bill tonight this is not an end of the two-price system, as my hon. friend from Kindersley-Lioydminster said. The two-price system has simply been taken out of the hands of Parliament and placed into the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board which can fix the price by regulation-as a matter of fact, they have done so. On May 26 of this year Senator Hazen Argue, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, announced the terms of Canada's new two-price system for wheat. He said this:
The new minimum and maximum prices for Canadian wheat sold for domestic human consumption will be five dollars and seven dollars per bushel, basis No. 1 Canada Red Spring at Thunder Bay.
He said further:
Effective August I the new Durum floor price for domestic consumption will be five dollars per bushel.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this new pricing by the Canadian Wheat Board was arbitrary and was made without consultation and without discussion with the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee. It is interesting to see that these increases in prices are effective as of August 1, because in the meantime the western grain producer is losing approximately $1 million per week. This is cash out of the producers' pockets and it is a direct subsidy to the consumers of Canada. It is also interesting to note that when the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) was minister of transport and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board he had arranged with cabinet and Treasury Board to increase the price for domestic wheat for human consumption which would have put one million dollars more per week into the hands of the western grain producers. The present government was not prepared to carry out that commitment but has been prepared to say, "Let the western grain producer subsidize the consumers of Canada to the tune of a million dollars per week until August 1."
During the debate on the bill, back in 1974, the member for Vegreville, as he then was, made this comment, as reported at page 865 of Hansard of October 29, 1974:
This bill lacks an effective measure to take into consideration the increased costs of production. Therefore we would recommend to the minister the implementation of such a provision to reflect the rising costs of production over the seven-year period.
From 1973 to 1979, including the second quarter, the costs of total farm inputs had increased by some 80.6 per cent. The index of crop production expenses, taking into consideration such items as seed and fertilizer and pesticides, had increased by some 105.5 per cent. The cost of agricultural chemicals alone had increased by 168 per cent. Mr. Speaker, had there been a mechanism in the bill to deal with increased costs of production, and had there been an annual review as provided

July 7, 1980
Two-Price Wheat Act
for in subsection 3 of section 5 of the act, the government would never had found itself in the position it is today, namely, presenting a bill to legalize its illegal acts.
Then again, this government has always shown and still shows a callous disregard for the west and, in particular, for the western grain producer. One has only to look back over the past few months and consider the uncertainty which has surrounded the port of Prince Rupert; one has only to look at the statements by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) who has cast doubt on the future of a number of railway branch lines which had been placed in the basic network by the party on this side of the Elouse when it was in power.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member is simply repeating the previous speech.


Douglas Charles Neil: The Liberals recently held a convention in Winnipeg which was supposedly to buoy up their strength in western Canada. Mr. Speaker, it would take more than a convention in Winnipeg to buoy up the strength of the Liberal party in western Canada. It will require an understanding of the hopes and aspirations of the west, an understanding which few if any of those sitting on the benches opposite possess. I do
not expect to see that understanding and that enlightenment coming about in my lifetime.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to participate for a while in this debate. Agriculture is important. Wheat is very important, one of the most important commodities produced in this country, if not the most important one. The bill before us this evening will extend the two-price system for wheat in this country. What a two-price system means is one price for the wheat we consume as human beings domestically in our country, and another price for wheat sold internationally. We have had that kind of system for our grain since 1973. Under the old act, as hon. members have already said tonight, it was to go on for seven years, until 1980. So we are really debating a very interesting piece of legislation.
First of all we are debating a piece of legislation which originated in the Senate. 1 want to just say a word here. I believe the bill should be rewritten in this place, in the House of Commons where members are elected democratically, where members are responsible to their constituents on a democratic basis, not in the Senate, a place to which people are appointed.
The bill before us today is really going to legalize the ending of a subsidy on November 30, 1978, for bread for consumers in our country. The subsidy was brought to an end by an order in council, by cabinet. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board was not there then, but the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was, back in 1978, and they dropped the subsidy which was worth several million dollars a year to ordinary Canadians from coast to coast. They dropped it without consultation in Parliament, without consulting those affected, low-income groups and others, and we are really
being asked tonight to legalize the action of the government back in November, 1978.
The other thing about the bill is that it increases the floor price to farmers for grain for domestic consumption. I obviously agree with that aspect. But let us take a look at why this issue is so important to us. First, as I mentioned, wheat is very important to the prairies and to the country. It is the most important commodity we have. Indeed, we are a tremendously large exporter of wheat, second in the world in terms of exports. It is worth a lot of money in terms of foreign exchange, our trade, jobs, and employing farmers on the prairies. There is not much we as a nation can do about grain we sell internationally, but there is something we can do about grain that is sold domestically.
What this bill does is increase the floor from $3.25 to $5 a bushel, but it puts a ceiling of $7 a bushel in the place of a ceiling of $5 a bushel, and I am somewhat concerned about that ceiling. As one hon. member said today, wheat now at Vancouver is selling for $6.73 a bushel. That is already very close indeed to the ceiling. If the price of wheat keeps going up the rate it has been going up for the last year or so, it will break through the ceiling very shortly, and we will have farmers again subsidizing consumers for bread and grain we, as human beings, use. So what I suggest to the government and to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), is that he consider changing the formula of the two-price wheat system and instead base it on the cost of production so that, if the cost of production goes up, the farmer will receive an increase in the price of wheat sold in this country. If the cost of production goes down, which is unlikely, then the price would go down.
I have here a brief from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture written a few weeks ago in which the federation suggested this type of system. Based on that system the price would be $5.40 for a bushel of grain, and each year there would be an annual adjustment based on a Statistics Canada report, namely, the farm input price index. The price index went up by 11 per cent last year, and therefore the price should be adjusted by an upward push of some 11 per cent. The principal suggestion I want to make to the government tonight is that the government consider changing the two-price wheat system and base it on a cost of production formula. If we did that, the farmer would not be subsidizing the consumer.
Up until 1978 the farmer subsidized the consumer by $35 million. I think it was the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) who said that in 1979 the subsidy was $22 million, and now it is an extra $1 million a week. I think that is very unfair. We should not have one sector of society subsidizing the whole society, particularly when that sector is barely getting a price which meets its cost of production, let alone providing a decent salary for grain producers.
If we look at the cost input for grain, any study which has been undertaken shows that the farmer is barely breaking even. The price of grain is not excessively high. It has not been
July 7, 1980

set by some oil sheik in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. The price of grain is not excessively high. Therefore for the grain we sell in our own country and for our own use, the farmer should not be subsidizing the consumer, and this is one way of getting around it.
The other thing I wanted to say is that 1 think the government should be putting a great deal of time and effort into trying to reach an international grains agreement or an international commodity agreement based on the same philosophy we use for the two-price wheat system. There should be a minimum price so that the producer is getting back the cost of production plus a decent salary, and a maximum price so that the consumer on the other side is not being shafted. I think that should be the objective for all commodities in the world. I think people in the world should get together and hammer out an agreement. They should take into consideration the cost of production and salaries for producers, whether they be producers of grain, copper, bananas, tobacco or whatever commodities.
A minimum-maximum price should be set, and there should be a sliding scale where there is a cost of production formula built in. Perhaps that is an ideal. Perhaps I am being an idealist by suggesting something like that, but 1 think Canada is a nation which is immensely respected in the world, and it could lead the way in trying to persuade other peoples to try to have international commodity agreements worked out between consumers and producers. There is a big difference between this and OPEC. OPEC is an organization strictly of producers. It is an organization of petroleum exporters, and it has set up a cartel. The producers, and the producers only, determine what the price to consumers should be. I am arguing tonight that consumers and producers should get together to determine a fair price for consumers and producers. There should be harmony in the marketplace. Then, for goodness sake, let us take these commodities out of the hands of international speculators. Let us take them from the futures market, where prices bob up and down like yo-yos or dice at a casino.
All we have to do is look at the price of sugar today. The price has gone up 200 per cent or 300 per cent in the last few months, and most of the reason for that is speculation. People like to play the futures market and make a few bucks. They buy sugar stocks. There has been a cutback in the supply of sugar in the world. There have been crop failures. There is not a real shortage; it is just that supplies are being restricted a bit. There is still enough in storage to supply the world market, but because of a cutback in supply and because of weather, the commodity market has gone a little wild. Speculators have been driving up the price. Who is going to pay? The ordinary consumers who have to go out and buy the commodity. We should have as an objective taking these commodities off the futures market and off the stock market and putting the control of prices into the hands of peoples so that we have an international agreement based on the real factors and not on something which is very artificial.


Jean-Luc Pepin: How about the productivity of the land as a factor?
Two-Price Wheat Act


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I cannot hear the minister, but perhaps in his remarks later on he can respond to some of these suggestions which are being made. Since from time to time he likes to think of himself as a progressive liberal I am sure that he will be moving in this direction.
The other thing which I think is important to look at is the fact that when the price of wheat goes up, the price of bread always goes up faster. The wheat component of a loaf of bread is only 11 per cent. The wheat component accounts for only 11.5 cents of a 24-ounce loaf of bread. However, under this act when the wheat component went up by some 1.25 cents per loaf and the price of a loaf was raised by three cents by some companies and two cents by others, the federal government had no way of stopping that. The federal government has not set up a fair prices commission which could go to a company telling it that the cost of its raw material has not gone up by any more than 1.25 cents per loaf yet the price of bread has gone up by two cents or three cents a loaf, and the company involved could be forced to roll back the price. I think that is something we should be doing.
The other thing is that the subsidy which was dropped by the government in 1978 should not have been dropped at all. I was saying earlier this evening that I think it is wrong for farmers to subsidize consumers for the price of their commodity when they are barely breaking even. At the same time I want to make it very clear that I think we should have a food policy so that some of the basic foods such as bread and milk are subsidized for ordinary people. We used to have a bread subsidy and a milk subsidy. When we look at the health standards of Canadians, we find that many people are undernourished. Perhaps they are overfed, but they are undernourished, and many people are not receiving enough of the basic foods. 1 think the government should be spending a few tens of millions of dollars every year subsidizing basic foods such as whole wheat bread and milk. I think we would be saving a lot of money when it comes to bills for medicare and hospitalization on the other side.
I think it was the Food Prices Review Board which said a number of years ago that about 40 per cent of our hospital days are tied in some way to the diets of Canadians. If we could save just a miniscule percentage of that through better nutrition and a food policy, we would indeed be making a real contribution to Canadian health and to our economy.
When 1 talk about the fact that the farmer should not be subsidizing the consumer, I am not saying that the consumer should be paying a higher price for some of these basic nutritious foods which are the basics of life. What I am saying is that our society as a whole should be making a commitment to make sure that the young people and all of the people of this country have basic and decent diets.
One could give many statistics about deficiencies amongst the Canadian people. One that struck me was that 70 per cent of old age pensioners in Canada suffer from calcium deficiency, when we have a capacity in this country to produce so much milk.

July 7, 1980
Two-Price Wheat Act
Another point I want to make before concluding is that the government, by doing what it has done with the two-price system, by establishing such a low ceiling, by making sure that farmers have to subsidize consumers over the years, is increasingly encouraging a feeling of hostility on the prairies toward the central government, toward the federal government of this land. Many Liberals wonder why they have not done better in the west. This is one of the many reasons why their party has not done better. There is a real feeling that the federal government does not understand us, and if it does understand us, that it does not really care about giving us a fair deal. If it is not just the two-price system on wheat, it is the lack of adequate assistance on the drought. A farmer told me the other day, "The federal government is giving us $60 million, but they gave Chrysler, one company, some $200 million". We are not complaining about aid to Chrysler, but there should be more equity and fairness.
There is the boycott of grain to the Soviet Union. Who is that going to hurt? I should like to refer the Minister of Transport to what is happening in the United States. Even Ronald Reagan said, "If you elect me president, we will terminate the boycott of grain to the Soviet Union". One reason he would do it, and one reason we should terminate this boycott, is that the boycott is not working. Time magazine said three or four weeks ago that the Americans are shipping as much grain now through the back door to the Soviet Union as they shipped through the front door in the last few years, that big companies like Cargill and Continental Grain are using third countries to transship grain on the way to the Soviet Union. They are finding other ways of getting their grain to Soviet Russia.
The only people who are suffering, in my opinion, are the farmers of Canada because of the fact that the grain companies are shipping their grain, because of the fact that the Soviet Union is going to other countries which ship grain to them and increasing their orders, countries such as Argentina. Therefore the farmers are suffering and the grain boycott is not having any effect on the situation in Afghanistan or on Mr. Brezhnev in the Soviet Union. If it is having any impact at all, it is creating some shortage of cattle and livestock in the Soviet Union, and if it is having any effect, the effect is on the poor people, not on leaders, and, of course, on the Canadian farmers.
I appeal to the government tonight to think about grain farmers, to terminate the boycott and start the shipping of grain to the Soviet Union because, if we do not, other people will do it.
These are some of the issues about which I am concerned in the bill before us today. A number of suggestions have already been made to the House by members of the Conservative party, and one does not have to repeat them. I just want to say in closing that I hope the government will change its policy when it comes to the two-price wheat system, that it will base the price of domestic grain for human consumption, grain we buy to feed ourselves-I want to say to the House that it is the
minority of the grain we produce-on a cost of production formula so that the farmers will be paid for the minority of their grain according to the cost of producing it. In other words, it will be a cost of production index such as there is on MPs' salaries, in the cost of living increase, in the salaries of many unionized workers, and in the price of most commodities we buy where the wholesale and retail prices go up. Let us do the same for the farmers as we are doing for the other people in this country. If we do that, the farmers of this country will be much happier and much more productive, and they will produce an even greater amount of food for the people of Canada and for the people of an increasingly hungry world.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) responsible for the Wheat Board is in the House during this debate. He has been in the House on several other occasions when this debate went forward, and it is an extremely important debate, as I am sure he will agree. Yet he has remained strangely silent throughout the debate up to the present moment. No doubt he is absorbing and listening to all the advice that has been given during the course of discussion and is becoming increasingly aware of the fact that the grain farmers on the prairies are in a critical situation. We hope that one of these days he will rise to his feet with some positive answers to many of the worth-while suggestions that have been made during the course of the debate.
Not only has the minister been listening carefully to the debate but he made a pilgrimage to Manitoba this week. We had an invasion in Manitoba over the weekend, and 1 had the opportunity of travelling west on the plane on Friday morning and meeting some of my colleagues from the government side of the House and pointing out to them that it was bad enough that we had drought on the prairies but now we were suffering from an invasion of locusts. Locusts devour everything before them as they go. I say that as a preliminary to a few comments I wish to make on this important subject, and I hope that in the words which I shall speak here tonight I will be able to convey to the responsible minister and to the government the growing urgency of the cost-price squeeze suffered by the grain producers on the prairies.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the Liberal government has taken the attitude which is represented in the bill which was first put forward in 1974, and again is being put forward in the legislation before the House. As a matter of fact I am here as a member of Parliament because of the same attitude of the Liberal government-and we have had many Liberal governments down through the years-toward the pricing position of prairie producers way back in the 1940s and 1950s.
During the war years the prairie producers, as an act of patriotism, agreed to a price under the British wheat agreement which would subsidize the consumers, the people of the United Kingdom who were largely bearing the brunt of World War II and enduring most of the suffering. The prairie farmers, who have always been outstanding Canadians, have always produced food for the world market at a price which,
July 7, 1980

most times, was lower than the cost of production. They agreed to a special pricing under the British wheat agreement, never anticipating that, following the war, they would have to bear the full brunt of this subsidization.
I remember fighting my first election on the strength of the British wheat agreement and the failure of the then Liberal government to come forward with any substantial part of the subsidy, the whole burden of which had been borne by the producers in that far off period. My opponent was mooted to become the minister of agriculture replacing the then well-known Hon. James G. Gardiner. I am referring to the Hon. Grant MacEwan who went on to fame and fortune in other vineyards, mostly in the province of Alberta. I can remember Mr. MacEwan who was then the dean of agriculture for the University of Manitoba promising that there would be a substantial contribution by the then Liberal government to subsidize prairie farmers who, over a long period of time, had sold their product at reduced prices. So, what we are seeing among latter day Liberals is a repetition of the same attitude toward prairie producers. Obviously they have forgotten nothing and learned nothing since that time.
The last election was precipitated unceremoniously, the second election in less than six months. Instead of allowing the new Conservative government to get on with the business of the nation which it was doing in quite progressive terms, the Liberal party was surprised when it was practically wiped out on the prairies. 1 submit it was inevitable this should happen because of its long continuing attitude which showed a complete lack of sensitivity and a complete unawareness of the longstanding problems of prairie grain producers. As far as I can see, at the conference in Winnipeg last weekend there was really no attempt to come to grips with these problems which have reduced the Liberal party to the unfortunate position where it speaks for only one part of Canada and is almost without a voice in the four western provinces.
1 hear the minister muttering from his front bench, and he is smiling. I hope he will rise to his feet and in firm tones tell us that the Liberal party has had a change of heart and that by listening to the words of wisdom on this side of the House, and particularly in communing with the grass roots in Winnipeg last weekend, it now realizes that there are fundamental changes which must be made on the part of the government in its attitude toward western Canada.
I do not want to be repetitive in this debate, but 1 want to point out that even the former minister, the Hon. Otto Lang, was aware of what he was doing when he carried this legislation through the House in 1974. 1 have the quotation before me which indicates that he said it was a subsidy for consumers and that it had nothing to do with subsidizing the producers. I shall deal with this in a moment, but quite firm promises were made by the then minister to overcome some of the criticisms made at that time during a rather lengthy debate. Instead of coming up with answers, the Liberal government in 1978 unceremoniously cancelled the subsidy. It did not stick to its
Two-Price Wheat Act
basic agreement which indicated that the subsidy would carry through until the end of the current crop year.
As my colleagues on this side of the House have said, this legislation is trying to legalize the termination date. November 30, 1978, was the date when the subsidy was cancelled, rather than allowing it to continue to the end of July, 1980, which was in the original program provided by the 1974 legislation. This act will not be proclaimed until the commencement of the new crop year on August 1. It means that prairie grain farmers will have to write off one whole crop year at a time of growing financial strain.
I want to point out a few suggestions whereby the minister responsible for the Wheat Board can make changes in the legislation which hopefully will do away with or deal with some of the criticisms which have been made on this side of the House. Of course the basic criticism is that it does nothing to deal with the rising costs to producers. Perhaps I should put on the record just how astronomically these costs have risen since 1973. The cost of total farm inputs or the cost of production to farmers has increased to the extent of 80.6 per cent from 1973 to the second quarter of 1979. Yet the government removed the subsidy, froze the price over a seven-year period, and totally ignored the impossible financial strait-jacket into which farmers were being put by this astronomical inflation increase which derived mostly from the irresponsible economic and financial policies of the last Liberal government.
I should like to refer to the index of crop production expenses which includes seed, fertilizers and pesticides. The cost of those necessary ingredients in production have gone up by 105.5 per cent. The cost of fertilizer alone has gone up by 115 per cent. I should note there that the farmers have been leaving the land in droves because of the impossible financial position in which they find themselves. Survivors would never have been able to keep up with the increasing demand for grain and grain products had it not been for the increasing use of fertilizers on vast prairie grain areas. Their price has increased by 115 per cent. Agricultural chemicals have gone up by 168 per cent. So, I am sure one can understand from those few statistics why 10,000 farmers a year have left the agricultural industry on the prairies. Now the situation has reached the crisis point because of the problem of drought, the rising costs of capital, and the failure of the government to deal with transportation of the increased production of crops over recent years.
Let me refer to some meetings I held recently with my own producers. The Brandon-Souris constituency is one of the richest agricultural grain producing areas of western Canada. In fact the city of Brandon is still known as the "Wheat City" of the west. I have had meetings with farmers who, I thought, would be in a very strong financial position. These meetings have been attended by farmers and their families, many of whom go into second and third generation farm people, and they have sounded a note of panic, suggesting that not only will they be leaving the agricultural industry, but that they will be leaving because of impending bankruptcy. The reason for the impending bankruptcy I think should be obvious after the

July 7, 1980
Two-Price Wheat Act
statistics I have quoted. One cannot continue to sell a product at well below the cost of production, and hope to survive.
The statistics I just presented to the House will, I am sure, demonstrate that this has been a losing game and has now become critical because these farmers who have survived by reason of hard work, by extending their holdings in order to become more productive, by fertilizing, using insecticides, mechanizing, with all the other ingredients that go into the production of grain today, are now facing the prospect of very little production this year. The present estimate is that they will receive about 50 per cent or less than the normal level, with no income to survive the economic crunch in which they find themselves. This is now an emergency situation.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was in the House earlier. He travelled all the way to Yorkton the other day to announce there was a drought emergency. He was addressing mainly members of the cattle industry, and he announced policies to convince the dairy farmer and cattle producer not to destroy their basic herds in order to keep their heads above the overwhelming economic waters. These policies do nothing to solve the problem of the grain producer. The grain producer is the individual caught in the cost-price squeeze, and the one in some cases, particularly in my constituency and in other areas of western Canada, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, who is faced with crop failure. The Minister of Agriculture realized there must be an infusion of cash to the tune of $60 million.
On the other hand the Minister of Transport in this case is depriving grain producers of $200 million which would have been made available under the subsidy had it not been arbitrarily cancelled on November 30, 1978.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Your party introduced the same bill.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The minister suggests that our party introduced the same bill. The minister of transport in our government, who was responsible for the Wheat Board and really took his responsibilities seriously, had already persuaded the cabinet to increase the subsidy by $1 to $6. That was action in that direction which was aborted when the Liberal party irresponsibly precipitated an unnecessary election last December.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I hear complaints from the other side. I saw no reason for the election. As a westerner I think 1 can point out clearly tonight that westerners from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories saw no reason for it. The party opposite received no support at all from that area. It was an unnecessary election because, for the first time, we were getting action in respect of western problems which had been totally neglected by a government whose basic support came and comes from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
My friends in the NDP suggest we lost ten seats in the west. That is true. If we must get into this subject, this was because the party alignment in western Canada is Conservative versus NDP. I admit that. The point I am making is that the election was unnecessary, and that is supported by the fact there was no support at all from western Canada for what the Liberal party was trying to do, and I am sure that is why that party made the pilgrimage to Winnipeg last weekend.
Let me give some examples of broken promises. The Hon. Otto Lang said, when we were debating the bill on October 29, 1974, speaking on the consumer subsidies:
We should enter into an agreement whereby there would be a range of prices for grain for wheat used for human consumption, a range which reflected more adequately than anything before the cost of production to producers.
That is from page 864 of Hansard for October 29, 1974. That was a promise by the then minister that prices would reflect the actual costs of production.
The special adviser, as he is now, to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Argue), Hon. Ralph Good-ale, a former member for the province of Saskatchewan, said that if conditions change drastically, as well they may, and they certainly have-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And changed with him too.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: And changed for him too. He said if things changed between then and 1980, and not 1978, and if there was a downturn in the grain market, as grain producers in western Canada realized could happen, the figures provided for in the bill could be changed by this House to keep things in line with real circumstances. He said that on October 30, 1974. Since then there has been no debate in the House. Those who have been here over the years know there has been no debate on this subject. The minister whispered across the House that this is the same as the bill we introduced, but we were not given an opportunity to introduce the bill or debate it. Nor was the then minister responsible for the Wheat Board able to bring forward the $1 increase in the subsidy. There has never been any consultation, as Mr. Goodale said there would be. The advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board has never been consulted on the situation. That committee was set up for that purpose but there has been no consultation taking place.
Perhaps I should refer to another quotation from Mr. Goodale because of his important position as an adviser to the minister in the other place. He said:
The minister shall, on an annual basis and in consultation with the producers, review the provisions of this act and all related regulations enacted by the governor in council with a view to making such recommendations to the governor in council as are appropriate in the light of prevailing costs of production of wheat and returns to producers.
Of course that is another total failure to live up to promises and expectations generated among farmers as a result.
To bring my remarks to a conclusion-and I hope that the minister will speak, perhaps tonight if he has reached the point
July 7, 1980

of decision as he has listened to the debate-let me say that I hope that he will introduce some flexibility into the legislation. It is not fair to freeze farm prices for a period of seven years. When agreements are made with labour unions they sometimes last only one year. This happened with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers recently, which received a fairly generous agreement compared to what the legislation before us is providing to the basic grain producers of Canada, who produce a product which is urgently needed. As I have already indicated, these farmers are facing a crisis which is not of their own making, and because of the problem of drought many of our best producers will go out of business.
There should be continuing negotiation for a world price on wheat. It has been said before, but it bears repetition: there was a time when the price of a bushel of wheat as it was related to a barrel of oil cost about $2.50. We all know how the price of a barrel of oil has gone up to $30 plus. Yet the price of a bushel of wheat is not much above $6.
Both of these resources are basic to the Canadian economy and to the world economy. It is the western producers who are feeling the brunt in this country. I look directly at the minister and I say that that is why his party has no support in western Canada, because they do not even grasp the problem. That is why I hope he will make a statement before we proceed much further in this debate. The farmers cannot continue to sell their grain below the cost of production. There must be some adjustment for the inflation which has eroded the value of the dollar since 1973 by more than 50 per cent.
We must stop the exodus of the basic producer away from the land, which is occurring at a rate of 10,000 per year. I am sure that the exodus will increase by much more than that figure because of the impending bankruptcies due to the high cost of credit and capital, as farmers try to expand their holdings and their producing capacity. I trust that both the Minister of Agriculture, who has made some initial attempts, and the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for the Wheat Board, will either withdraw this act and pay the $200 million which is owed to the western grain producers, or bring in a revised act which does not freeze prices unrealistically for seven years, which is flexible and meets the costs of production and which will protect our grain producers in a drastic time of economic crisis.


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill S-6, an act to amend the Two-Price Wheat Act. I would like to speak from the point of view of Canadian consumers. In so doing I must say that I am very proud to be joining the protest which was first raised in 1978 by many consumers and senior citizens groups across Canada, groups who were very concerned because the Liberal government of the day was removing subsidies on bread and pasta.
In these earlier protests it was predicted the price of bread would soar, and it has. The price of pasta has increased by 25 per cent. The prices of both items have increased far beyond the value of the subsidy. This, of course, is as the result of the direct withdrawal of the government subsidy. Bill S-6 will
Two-Price Wheat Act
finally remove all government responsibility for subsidizing the present exorbitant cost of bread.
I think it is particularly symbolic of this government that bread, the staff of life, is the topic of this retrogressive bill and that it reflects the values and attitudes of it toward the needs of ordinary Canadians, particularly the needs of the over one million poor people in Canada today. As we know, bread is the staple food for most Canadians, with rice and pasta the alternatives in some ethnic groups. Bread is an essential food item for low income families on welfare who cannot afford to buy fresh produce or fresh meats more than once or twice a month. It is also very essential to the livelihood of our western wheat farmers.
Despite these facts, as my colleague and other colleagues have mentioned, in September, 1978, the skim milk subsidy program was dropped by the Liberal government, followed by the termination of bread subsidies in December. The Conservatives, I believe, supported these cutbacks. These subsidies were removed at the very same time that inflation was on the rise. We know that soaring food costs were putting great stress on family budgets such as they are today.
We in the New Democratic Party oppose this bill just as strongly as we opposed the cutbacks in 1978. With the high price of food today, the budgets and meals of low income families are affected, and I am sure that most families are shocked after their weekly shopping trips. For example, the magazine Ottawa Today conducted a survey of local food prices which showed that eggs are up to $1.19 a dozen, bread costs 65 cents a loaf, frozen fish costs $2.39, apples cost 98 cents per pounds, and milk costs 72 cents a quart. If one compares these prices with the prices in my riding of Vancouver East, they will find that prices there are even higher. In British Columbia the cost of a loaf of bread is now close to 99 cents. It is quite significant of our lack of Canadian policy when we know that people in British Columbia can go across the border to Seattle and pick up three loaves of breads for $1, which is the price the people of British Columbia pay for one loaf.
We also know that it is cheaper and easier for children to go into a store and buy a chocolate bar or a package of potato chips than it is to purchase a delicious Canadian apple. Local cherries in season in Vancouver cost about $1 a pound and a package of five beets costs 59 cents at the height of the season. There is no question in my mind that this supports the NDP position that there must be a fair prices review board with power to roll back prices and to take a good look at profit, particularly those of the supermarkets.
The high cost of food is not a trivial matter. It certainly relates to the bill which is before us tonight. It is an established scientific fact, and hon. members can refer to the recent report which was put out by the Year of the Child Commission, that children who are born of pregnant mothers who do not have proper nourishment suffer from irreparable brain damage, and many of these are poor children. They start life with damaged brains which will make it impossible for them to be fully mature people in society.

July 7, 1980
Two-Price Wheat Act
It is also well established, and I have had experience with this myself, that pre-school children who do not have the proper nutritious diet suffer from poor co-ordination, lethargy, and inadequate physical, intellectual and social development. It is no wonder that when these same youngsters get to elementary school they are the underachievers, the people who are categorized as having learning disabilities and behavioural problems, and who are the problem makers as they grow toward adolescence. Pretty soon they become the troublemakers, as they reach adolescence.
We can take responsibility for a good part of these social and personal problems because there is a very direct link between inadequate nutrition, poor diet, and the lack of development that we see in many of these children. Often their parents cannot afford proper food and are themselves poorly nourished and apathetic. The whole relationship of inadequate diet and food is an important part of the syndrome of poverty.
This bill has particular significance for millions of poor people in Canada. It should be opposed for the same reasons that many senior citizens on limited incomes protested against the termination of food subsidies in 1978.
I should like to remind hon. members of a few further facts about poverty. Families on social assistance have very little money available for food. Neither do they have money for transportation to go and hunt for bargains in food or to go to the hinterlands to buy directly from the farmers. They cannot afford to buy freezers and take advantage of bulk purchase prices. Although they have the least amount of money in their food budgets of any people, they have to pay the highest prices. Usually the only place they can shop for a few items at a time is the corner grocery store. By the end of the month these families are eating spaghetti, bread, or sandwiches without meat.
In British Columbia a family of four on social assistance receives $334 per month. That does not include shelter. Out of this they must buy bus tickets, clothing, school supplies, recreation, if they have any, as well as food. We know now that nutritionists say it requires well over $300 per month at today's prices to provide a nutritious and adequate diet for a growing family of four people.
If you were living alone, Mr. Speaker, even with parliamentary dining room privileges, I doubt if you could feed yourself on $136 per month. This is what a single person on welfare receives today and it must cover all expenses, including food. 1 wonder how such people can possibly afford to buy bread which is now close to $1 per loaf.


Mr. Lang:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the relevance of fish, freezers, and social policy to a debate on the Two-Price Wheat Act. I think it is indicative of something, that the hon. member did not know that the bill under discussion was S-6. This has been apparent through the speech, as she is not speaking to the subject.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. As the occupant of the chair I have had cause once or twice in recent weeks to ask hon. members to consider seriously whether they are observing the rule of relevancy, so it comes as perhaps a somewhat strange ruling on my part that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), although the subject matter of Bill S-6 is the two-price wheat system, is nonetheless speaking about food, food costs, and the cost of living to Canadians. In that regard I think I have to find that the hon. member is in order.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 think it is particularly significant that the hon. member and the party he represents are insensitive to the real meaning of the two-price policy on wheat. It certainly was aimed at trying to make food available to people at a reasonable price.
Surely in a country like Canada, where we can afford to pay over $3 billion for fighter planes, we can afford to subsidize the cost of bread and milk for children and the elderly. Why can we not subsidize nutritious lunches in schools and daycare centres? I am told that this has been a regular practice in the United Kingdom for many years. Surely we could find the funds if we had the will to do it.
This bill establishes once and for all that the Liberal government does not care about the needs of the people, particularly poor people. It does not care enough to reinstate a bread subsidy program or to establish a national food policy. The New Democratic Party feels that food subsidies should certainly be the cornerstone of a national food policy and this bill relates directly to this.
When I first became a candidate for election to this House, Mr. Speaker, I consulted the former member for Vancouver-Kingsway, Mrs. Grace Maclnnis, who will long be remembered in this House for her outstanding service to Canada. She told me that her greatest regret over the years she was here and since her retirement, was that this House did not bring in a national food policy for Canada, one that would recognize that all Canadians should have the right to nutritious food at prices they could afford, along with the right to decent and affordable housing. Perhaps these should be included as basic rights when we talk about the Bill of Rights and revising our constitution.
It should be the right of every Canadian child to start life well nourished, with maximum opportunities to develop his or her potential. If we accept this as a desirable goal for a country like ours, we must have a government that provides leadership and that will have a practical plan to assist consumers, as well as farmers, through the control and subsidization of food prices.
Instead of permanently withdrawing Bill S-6, we should extend it to cover a much wider range of essential food items. I would suggest a range of food items that reflects Canada's
July 7, 1980

food laws would be most appropriate-food that would be distributed only through Canadian food outlets.
Last year I proposed to the Peoples Food Commission that the Government of Canada should initiate a fair food policy and that this policy should subsidize five essential foods- those foods which children are told in school that they must eat in order to have a balanced diet. The five sample foods are symbolic of the five categories of food that make up a balanced diet, and they are produced in Canada.
First, is nutritious whole grain bread, or, in the case of some ethnic groups, a substitute of rice or pasta. This should be the first food we subsidize. At one time the Liberal government recognized this, despite the way the hon. member opposite who just spoke seems to interpret the bill.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: And Gene the Terrible took it off.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Yes, Gene the Terrible took it off. Second are dairy products. At one time there was a subsidy on skim milk. Most families prefer fresh milk, of course, but certainly we should have a food policy that would make milk available to every family. I have just returned from a tour of the northern peninsula of Newfoundland where I discovered that [DOT]milk is a rarity and, if it is received, it is often six or seven days old.
Third would be meat, poultry or fish. I am sure that my colleague to my right agrees that it should be Canadian Fish, fresh or frozen. It should be available at affordable prices to every Canadian family at least once a week.
Finally, fresh vegetables such as carrots, should be available. Canadian apples should be made available under a fair food policy.
I should like to call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, on June 16 I put the following question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), and I quote:
In view of the apparent general support among potato growers for the concept of a national potato marketing agency, will the minister ask the Farm Products Marketing Council to initiate public hearings this summer in order to move toward that objective; and if they will not do that, will the minister immediately
Adjournment Debate
establish a commission of inquiry, on an urgent basis, to look into the potato industry in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture replied saying that indeed he had been in touch with the National Farm Products Marketing Council and had asked it to hold public hearings to inquire into the potato industry. He added, and 1 quote:
1 believe I can safely say that hearings will be held this summer on the proposals, especially by the provinces of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, that a regional agency be established for the eastern production region of Canada, including Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
Since then, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture-if I am to believe an article I read in the newspaper Le Droit of Ottawa on last Thursday or Friday which I unfortunately do not have with me at this time, the Minister of Agriculture came back charging and said he hoped the Farm Products Marketing Council would undertake as soon as possible to hold public hearings with a view to eventually establishing that potato marketing board that all or nearly all people are now calling for forcefully, of course, because of the poor situation in which the potato industry has been for the past three years, without going back further.
The other aspect of my question, Mr. Speaker, consisted in asking the minister whether the Farm Products Marketing Council did not want to go ahead immediately and hold public hearings with a view to establishing a potato marketing board.
1 asked the minister whether he was prepared to set up an independent commission of inquiry into all aspects of the potato industry. I think there is no point in reminding the many hon. members listening to me tonight and the Minister of Agriculture that during the few months we were in the opposition 1 advocated the establishment of that independent commission of inquiry to report as soon as possible. And, fortunately, that proposal did not die on the shelves as the Liberal party in its great wisdom decided to include it in its agricultural platform. And I remember full well, among other things, a large page of advertising that was published in a farming weekly in the province of Ontario which was paid for by the Liberal party and where one could see the picture of the present Minister of Agriculture, who is still the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, containing that election commitment to establish as soon as possible an independent commission of inquiry into all aspects of the potato industry in Canada and to have it report to the government on an urgent basis.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Agriculture has only the best of intentions when he urges the officials of the Farm Products Marketing Agency to hold public hearings as soon as possible. However, this is only one part of a much more complex problem, and as evidence I would like to quote a
2632

Adjournment Debate
letter dated January 7 that I received from one of the big names in the potato industry, McCain Foods Limited:

Obviously, it would not matter to us one way or the other if an inquiry was held. I am certainly not opposed to it.
The problems of the potato industry are not simple. I don't think it is any one item that is giving us troubles-it is probably a series.

I could also quote many letters that I received at my office from simple farmers, people who deal solely with the production of potatoes and who support what I have said to the effect that it is urgent to get to the bottom of this situation, because when an industry like the potato industry has marked ups and downs for about 15 years, we have to wonder not if the industry is sick, but rather what stage of its agony it has reached, because, in my opinion, the potato industry is more than sick, it is agonizing.
When 1 speak about the potato industry, 1 have the impression that 1 know what I am talking about, and 1 am thinking mostly about the independent producers, the small family farms with 100, 150 or 200 acres and other family operations which might farm well over 500 acres.
However, I am thinking mostly about these hundreds of average producers for whom the state of the markets, the state of all the marketing structures and the government policies at the federal and provincial levels have become matters of life and death. No one in this industry and no one at the federal level is able now to pinpoint the trouble. 1 am not more of an expert than others, but I am ready to admit that, as written in the letter that 1 quoted earlier, we have a whole series of problems and that the simple fact of establishing a potato marketing agency will not get to the bottom of the situation and bring the potato industry back to health or to life. I therefore look forward to hearing the comments of the Minister of Agriculture because in the past, he has always responded very humanely to the problems which affect the various sectors of agricultural production in Canada.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member 1 will repeat a little of what I have already said. On May 29 I directed the National Farm Products Marketing Council to inquire into the merits of forming a marketing agency under the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and report the findings to me with dispatch.
Some people may have different ideas as to what "dispatch" means, but according to the act it means that after public notification has been given, hearings can be held within 45 days. They have held meetings with all the provinces they felt were interested and which have experienced this economic drought because they were producing a product-but they were as badly off as the farmers in western Canada who have nothing to sell; these people produce the product but they could not sell it, and in many instances a lot of it came to
July 7, 1980
destruction through deterioration since there was no market for it. What we are saying to these producers is: let us organize properly so as to get rid of the kind of economic drought you face four years out of five, as the record will show.
There has been very little co-operation between the provinces which are the main producing provinces in Canada. That has to be a fact. Or else we can do as an old Conservative government did under R. B. Bennett when he forced a Canadian Wheat Board on the west in 1935-we could force a Canadian potato marketing commission on potato producers. That may be the only answer to getting a proper marketing system for the product because of the great inequity there is in the potato business.
We are also receiving messages from provinces like British Columbia and Alberta, saying, "Please do not leave us out of any marketing commission or agency that you are going to set up for potatoes because we want to be in it." We are receiving that kind of representation. 1 had further discussions late last week with the National Farm Products Marketing Council. The council is prepared to go ahead because now the provinces of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario have said they want a tough agency. They want those kinds of hearings to be held with regard to the marketing of potatoes in eastern Canada.
So, we are on the way, but we also may be holding hearings in some of the provinces in western Canada to see whether we should go even further, because there is that authority vested in the Minister of Agriculture in the national farm products marketing legislation. I say that this is something which is long overdue. I think that a commission would only find most of the things we know already. There are many, many, bad, bad marketing practices, and the only thought I have is that if we appointed a commission it might say, "Mr. Minister, go ahead and recommend to your government that you impose a potato marketing commission or board on the producers of that product," because there is much unfairness, inequity and economic disparity existing among producers who produce a highly nutritious product but receive no returns. Many of these producers are going bankrupt. They are productive people. Something must be done, and I agree with the hon. member that something probably should have been done some time before.


NATIONAL REVENUE-EFFECT OF NEW CUSTOMS REGULATIONS ON SMALL BUSINESS
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, 1 am faced with a dilemma tonight. It is now about 12 minutes after ten, and I have seven minutes to deal with a problem which I did not realize was such a monumental problem all across Canada.
On May 5 I rose to ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) about the use of B32 actions against small businessmen. At the time I was raising this because a constituent of mine brought to my attention the way he was being
July 7, 1980

abused by the use of this action. Subsequently I received a file about an inch thick from brokers across Canada who are bothered by this kind of action.
My dilemma is how I can talk about this subject without becoming perilously close to what sounds like civil service bashing, which 1 detest. Yet this problem has to be corrected. How can I deal with it without criticizing the people who are the cause of the problem?
After 1 raised the issue, I found that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has addressed itself to the problem, and in one of its bulletins said:
It was stated that there was a growing tendency among port officials to adopt the attitude "Pay first and then we will listen to you" which amounts to a complete denial of the basic purpose of the 30-day grace period.
It is the customs officials who have the businessmen by the throat when they arrive at ports of entry with products they are trying to import.
Since May 5 I have found the following things. First, the practice which Revenue Canada has adopted in the customs branch may in fact be illegal. The Customs Act allows for 90 days for payment to be made on a reassessment, but the practice by the customs branch and the policy of the customs branch is to give 30 days. Is it possible for revenue policy to supersede the Customs Act? In fact the government may be facing a lawsuit on this matter. However, the customs officials know that small firms cannot afford litigation and that large firms are not bothered by the small amounts they have to pay. They can ride out that kind of storm. Small firms cannot do that, but larger firms can.
Second, I found that the practice was designed, oddly enough, to cut down on paper work. I found out through a departmental bulletin that when the B32 form was adopted, the practice took three forms to replace the one which was used previously. That is some way of cutting down on the paper burden for Canada and for the business community! The way we cut down on the paper burden in this practice is to put a pistol to the businessman's head and say, "Give me your wallet in five seconds". That is a good way of cutting down on litigation. That is a good way of cutting down the number of appeals, because if one has 30 days in this case instead of 90 days, there will be many fewer appeals. I suppose in some ways this has been effective, but it has not been fair, and that, after all, ought to be the uppermost policy of the government.
I know that customs officials cannot be expected to have on-the-spot, intricate knowledge of the multiplicity of imports arriving at the ports of entry. Let me illustrate. I have received a letter from the Minister of National Revenue dealing with this very issue. Here is what he said in this case:
The goods described as Foam Compound B, MR resins, FSC Foams Compound B, Aropol resins, and Hetron resins were also entered under tariff item 93901-1 and 93901-41, free, most favoured nation tariff rate. These have now been determined to be unsaturated polyester and polyether polyol polycondensation moulding compositions classifiable under tariff item 93901-41 at 12.5 per cent, most favoured nation tariff rate. However, it should be mentioned that when Compound A and Compound B are imported together as a system in pre-deter-
Adjournment Debate
mined mixing ratios, they are classifiable as a polyurethane polycondensation moulding composition under tariff item 93901-42 at 7.5 per cent, most favoured nation tariff rate.
I wonder if the minister understood what he was writing when he wrote that letter to me. 1 know I did not understand it when I read it. I expect that most customs officials, when an item comes to the border or many other times like it, do not understand what the item is about. If they can be human enough, as they must be, not to understand the tariff items because they are intricate, surely they can be human enough to admit when they have made a mistake. That is the bottom line of all this.
What the customs officials are doing, it seems to me, is harassing businessmen because they know that the regulations are on their side, not because they are quoting them accurately but because they are so complex that the poor businessman will have to cave in. In order to cover themselves even further, they devised B32 which means that they can go back two years and reclassify at will items which a company has imported. If you are a small manufacturer and you have imported an item two years ago, you have remanufactured it, you have sold it, you have based your price on the cost of the item plus a small margin of profit, how can you go back two years on that item which has been sold, add the extra expense to the cost and to the price and recoup your losses? It seems to me that the customs officials do not appreciate the implications of the complications that they create for the small businessman.
The minister still has not answered me how the businessman is supposed to function if the government can go back two years and the businessman has no recourse in recouping his cost. I wonder how many customs officials there are across Canada who have never had any business experience at all and therefore have never understood what happens to the businessman. In the case of my constituent it meant that the bill which was presented to him for 30 days payment wiped out the profit for two years for that company, which meant that there was no margin for error, which meant that 14 jobs were on the line, just because some official wanted a cushion of comfort to be able to go back two years.
There were three officials who reclassified those items three different ways. Could they be wrong? I expect they could be wrong. The option then is to drive these people out of business. If the government wants to do that, it can carry on with the present practice.
Let me state in conclusion that the great fear I have-and no company has said it to me-is that if a company makes a representation to a member of Parliament such as I, I wonder what will happen the next time it comes to the border. Will the customs officials harass the company even more than they have before because it had the audacity to make a representation to its member of Parliament?


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we can only be thankful that the hon. member refrained from bashing our civil servants.

July 7, 1980
Adjournment Debate
I appreciate the opportunity the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) has given me to explain the effect of new customs regulations on small businesses. In his question of May 5 the hon. member made specific mention of the B32 assessment and the 30-day period in which payments must be made. The practice of issuing requests for additional duty and/or tax of course is not new. What is new is the requirement that such assessments be paid within 30 days. This system of payment was introduced nearly a year ago. It was done as a result of a recommendation by the financial management task force on accounting and control of revenue, refunds and drawbacks, set up because of reports and criticisms generated by international audits and by the office of the Auditor General in the areas of accounts receivable and accounts payable. As we all know, the hon. member's party is the very one which told us Liberals to pay very close attention to what the Auditor General said.
The task force recommendation was that assessments and reassessments be payable on demand. However, the system introduced was to require payment within 30 days of the date of the B32 notice. In making this recommendation, the task force observed that accounts receivable in customs were too high and there were delays in payments.
It should be noted that the Customs Act envisages the payment of duty at the time of entry of the goods and that the 30 days of grace granted in paying assessments is in accordance with current business practice. Also, the vast majority of these assessments are paid without appeal or, if appealed, the ultimate decision confirms the assessment. Of course importers have the right to appeal these assessments under the provisions of sections 46, 47 and 48 of the Customs Act. This procedure provides for an appeal eventually to the deputy minister and, if not satisfied, to the Tariff Board and the Federal Court.
The problem in accounts receivable arose as a result of a systems change in 1973-74 designed to expedite the clearance of goods at customs to the benefit of all importers. The system has been very successful in this regard. This new system permits importers or their agents to clear goods on the basis of their own declarations of duty and tax owing. In general, it is not until some time after entry, usually within four weeks, that a departmental officer reviews the entry document and first, agrees with the entry as presented; second, decides that too much duty and/or tax has been paid; or third, decides that additional duty and/or tax is owing. A B32 assessment for additional duty and/or tax may then be issued. This assessment is made on the basis of the officer's interpretation of the legislation and past departmental rulings, policy statements and instructions. Of course importers and brokers may seek guidance from departmental officers on tariff classification and valuation matters in advance of importation so as to ensure the accuracy of their declarations.
As regards the three different classification judgments on one item by three different officers, departmental officers are aware of the importance of uniformity of application of the Customs Act across the country. Substantial resources are
devoted to improving uniformity. If any situations occur when an opinion or a ruling on tariff classification will be given which conflicts with a previous opinion or ruling, the importer has recourse to the formal appeal procedure. I see Mr. Speaker is about to call my time.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-CHARGE OF RAPE-DEFENCE OF | CONSENT-AMENDMENT TO CRIMINAL CODE


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise in connection with a question which I asked in this House on June 4 last of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) with respect to the question of rape and certain decisions which were made by the Supreme Court of Canada on this subject in recent months.
In the April 14 Speech from the Throne the Liberal government pledged that it would take strong measures to promote equality for women, saying that there was no room in Canada for sexual discrimination of any kind. One of the areas on which we were promised action was "the very serious problem of violence against women". In the meantime we have seen no sign whatsoever of the government's proposed aid to women who are victims of violence.
j
What has happened is that the Supreme Court of Canada has produced two judgments which seriously affect the laws that relate to violent crimes against women. On May 20 last the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case of Regina v. Pappajohn. In this judgment the court upheld the admissibility of the defence on the part of an accused that he had an honest belief the victim of the rape was consenting even though he could cite no reasonable ground for that belief.
In upholding the validity of this particular defence our Supreme Court relied upon the precedent that had earlier been set in an English case, a decision of the House of Lords in The Director of Public Prosecutions v. Morgan. In that case the House of Lords ruled that three men who were in fact convicted of rape would have been acquitted had they claimed they believed the woman they had raped at the behest of her husband was playacting when she violently resisted the assault of these three men, even though there were no reasonable grounds for that belief whatsoever. In that particular case the husband of the woman in question had said that if the three men came home and wanted to rape his wife she would put up quite a struggle, but they should ignore that because really she was just pretending. The British House of Lords held, and our Supreme Court here in Canada followed the decision, that had they honestly believed she really was just playacting they would have been acquitted completely of the charge of rape.
We see the serious effect of that in a decision which shortly followed. In the decision of Regina v. Cogan, a case in which a woman who was crying, who was protesting against the advances and the assault of a man who had been invited by her husband to rape her, in effect, the accused was acquitted. This particular man who was charged with rape was acquitted. His defence was that he thought he had the consent of the woman
July 7, 1980

because her husband had said it would be all right. That is the result of the kind of decision which our Supreme Court of Canada recently handed down in Pappajohn.
The serious implications of this decision cannot be overemphasized. The fact is that now women are going to be placed basically in the invidious position of having either to resist an attacker forcefully so it is clear beyond any doubt whatsoever they were opposing, or to submit willingly even though what that could mean is that the woman would subsequently have no recourse in law. This will, of course, mean there will be even fewer reported rapes and even fewer convictions for a crime in respect of which there is already a very low incidence of report.
On June 4 I asked the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development what action he and his government were prepared to take to deal with the effects of this very mistaken decision on the part of our Supreme Court. I certainly hope the parliamentary secretary in the House tonight is prepared to tell the House that legislation will be forthcoming very quickly, and that it will not be included in the omnibus criminal code amendments which have been promised by the government for some time.
It is critical we recognize that these changes should redefine the nature of rape to recognize that it is not a crime of passion, but in fact is a crime of violence against women. Our law must recognize that. I certainly hope the law will also get rid of the so-called spousal immunity whereby a husband cannot be convicted of raping his wife even under the most outrageous of circumstances. This perpetrates the old myth of a woman, a wife, as a property of her husband. 1 certainly hope we will hear tonight that the government intends to remove that particular inequity in our laws in respect of sexual offences against women.
Finally I would note that, although we have seen no action whatsoever on the part of the government in this important area of violent crimes against women, we have once again in the decision of Regina v. Forsythe, by the Supreme Court of Canada, seen a very serious setback to women in the area of rape and the laws of evidence in rape trials. We have seen that our Supreme Court has permitted defence counsel now to badger and harass women about their sexual activities with other persons other than an accused, activities which are clearly and totally irrelevant to the question of whether at any given time a woman was violently or sexually assaulted by a man with a charge of rape then being laid.
We see in both the Pappajohn and in the Forsythe decisions the need for Parliament to move quickly in this area of the law, the need for long overdue amendments to protect women who have been the victims of these kinds of attacks.
In concluding, I hope that we will see, as I said earlier tonight, the review which has apparently been conducted by the department, completed, and that the crime of rape will be redefined as a crime which reflects the reality of its violent nature against women.
Adjournment Debate


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the concern of the hon. member for the problems of victims of sexual assault, and 1 share those concerns with him. I do not concur with his views on the effect of the recent Pappajohn decision, to which he refers. In all seriousness I suggest that he take a closer look at the judgment before he makes and spreads abroad even more the misinterpretation of at least a part of the decision to which I will now address myself.
The Pappajohn decision of the Supreme Court of Canada affirms that what is known as a "mistake of fact" defence is available in Canada on a charge of rape. Before a judge can put a defence to the jury, there must be an evidentiary basis upon which that defence can rest. For a "mistake of fact" defence to succeed in a rape case, there must be some evidence which, if believed, would support the existence of the accused's honest but mistaken belief that the complainant was consenting to the act of sexual intercourse.
In the Pappajohn case the trial judge did not put the defence of "mistake of fact" to the jury because he was of the opinion that there was no evidentiary basis for it. The accused's defence was that the complainant consented; it was not that he mistakenly believed that the complainant consented. The majority of the judges in the Supreme Court of Canada agreed that the trial judge was correct in not putting this defence to the jury. The two dissenting judges thought that the defence should have been put to the jury.
It is incorrect to say that an accused must be acquitted even if there were no reasonable grounds for this belief. While the existence of reasonable grounds is not a pre-condition to the availability of the defence, those grounds necessarily determine the weight the jury will give to the defence.
The hon. member has also raised the matter of legislation amending the Criminal Code to deal with sexual offences against women. 1 point out to him that the code amendments under consideration right now would deal with sexual offences against men and women. I am sure that the hon. member was concerned with both instances, although his emphasis was on instances concerning women.
There was quite an extensive review over the last decade of this entire subject. As a result the government introduced Bill C-52, in the Thirtieth Parliament, which was criticized on a number of grounds, including that of redefinition of rape to indecent assault on the one hand and aggravated sexual assault in the other circumstance. Since that bill was introduced there has been a great deal of criticism from women's organizations. The Department of Justice and its officials since the introduction of that bill a couple of years ago have consulted very widely and have been assisted by the Canadian Status of Women Council in that particular respect.
I would inform the hon. member that the minister is presently reviewing all the possible alternatives on this very serious and acute subject. I am advised by the Department of Justice that the minister hopes to finalize this matter with cabinet in the coming weeks with a view to introducing a bill on the

subject as soon as possible. In the absence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) I do not wish to comment on the Forsythe decision to which the hon. member has referred. However, I want to assure him that the minister is studying that decision of the Supreme Court very carefully. Finally, I concur with the hon. member in his concern for this matter.
July 7, 1980


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

Tuesday, July 8, 1980