1980-06-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac):: Madam
Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing importance under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas Canada and Canadians in the course of the next year will focus their attention on a renewed constitution, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead):
That the House of Commons of Canada, approaching its 113th year, place on record its deep appreciation of the achievements of the Fathers of Confederation, and with a united voice express its faith and confidence in the future of this great country, and that this act of faith in our future will lead to a renewed inspiration of the patriotic fervour of Canadians and afford a clear vision of our aspirations and ideals so that in this coming year from sea to sea, we may develop a robust Canadian spirit of renewed national unity.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgency stemming from the arrogant refusal of the government-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Perhaps you could wait until you hear it.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -to reveal the salaries of over 2,000 order in council appointments, such refusal providing sharp contrast to the open disclosure policy of the previous Progressive Conservative government, and positions consisting mostly of awards to Liberal party sacred cows. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House expresses extreme condemnation of government action in hiding from the Canadian people what they are paying through their taxes in salaries for over 2,000 high-ranking public servants, which provides a complete mockery of the government's declaration of support for more freedom of information to the public; and, finally, this House requests the Prime Minister to reveal complete details immediately of all such salaries, and that the blocking of such information be no longer permitted by the undue influence and advice of such persons as Michael Pitfield, a servant and not the master of the Canadian people.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of reports from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to the effect that the accident prone Three Mile Island nuclear power installation is to be vented of its contaminants into the atmosphere, perhaps as early as this weekend, and since the prevailing winds could carry this emission into Ontario and Canada's Atlantic region, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs investigate these reports and. if they are accurate, demand a halt to this potentially dangerous practice until we can be assured that no Canadian man, woman or child is exposed to the dangers of radiation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 27, 1980


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Ukrainian dissident, Valentyn Moroz, was detained by the immigration officials at Toronto international airport last weekend, causing him to miss speaking engagements in the city of Toronto. Dr. Moroz has entered Canada on 14 or 15 previous occasions without incident or delay. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That this House direct the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, who is also the minister responsible for communicating a better understanding of government actions and policies, to communicate with the Minister of Immigration to clarify entry visa requirements to avoid further delays and inconvenience to legitimate visitors to Canada and at least the equal treatment afforded Dr. Timothy Leary or Guiseppe Calamusa.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HARBOURS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South 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 the former Liberal government, in the 1979-80 blue book of estimates, committed itself to funding phase II of the Ladner harbour project in Ladner, British Columbia, and whereas the previous Progressive Conservative minister of fisheries recognized the urgency of completing this important project and directed his deputy minister to include Ladner in the 1980 small craft harbours program, yet the Department of Fisheries has failed to act on that directive, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans be directed to initiate construction of phase II of the Ladner harbour project immediately, in order to eliminate further inconvenience to the fishermen of Ladner due to the lack of adequate servicing at the present facility.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARKS CANADA
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In fact, this matter is so urgent that the northern district of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities passed resolutions concerning it.
In light of the fact that local residents recently came to the aid of Riding Mountain National Park, and due to the drought resulting in poor prospects for grain, beef or dairy production, and considering that a large number of trees left standing in the burnt-out area could be salvaged by local people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That the Minister of the Environment, responsible for Parks Canada, take direct and immediate action by exercising his authority and allowing local residents to have access to the park and to carry out selective removal of timber and trees from burnt-out areas; and, furthermore, that the minister implement this program immediately in order for work to begin this year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Fundy-Royal.


Mr. Crosby:: Excuse me, Madam Speaker; Halifax West is my constituency. This is interesting, in view of Your Honour's remarks the other day with respect to knowing all the members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


OFFSHORE RESOURCES
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43. Ownership and control of offshore resources is vital to the development of Nova Scotia and other coastal provinces, but is now enmeshed in a legal wrangle involving federal and provincial claims.
In order to expedite settlement of matters in dispute, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House direct the Minister of Justice to table the legal opinion upon which the federal claim of ownership is based, so that the opinion can be assessed by the provinces.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
June 27, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEFEAT OF MPs BY PARLIAMENTARY PRESS GALLERY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move what I consider a very tragic motion. It arises out of a very tragic occurrence on the Hill last Wednesday night, namely, for the second time in 12 years the parliamentary press gallery ball team clobbered the members of Parliament. In fact, they absolutely decimated and totally outclassed the members of Parliament.
Therefore, I want to move a motion which I moved two years ago, but to rearrange some of the words to make the motion more appropriate. I move, seconded by the nine other victims of last Wednesday night:
That this House instruct the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport to summon immediately all his top advisers from across the land for the purpose of devising a foolproof emergency program with the very difficult, but not impossible, objective of upgrading the fitness of the average 30-year old member of Parliament to that of the average 60-year old member of the parliamentary press gallery.


Madam Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns Canada's presumed boycott of the Olympic Games.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he will confirm for the House that the government and, indeed, the Prime Minister personally, approved a decision to send two young Canadians to Moscow with the Olympic flag, thereby creating a situation in which Canada would have to participate officially in the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games, which is surely contradictory to the Olympic boycott.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, to the best of our knowledge there was no contact with anyone in government before the decision was made to send the two teenagers. The mayor of the city of Montreal, as the mayor of the host city of the 1976 Olympics, has the normal responsibility of handing over the Olympic flag to the new host city.
Oral Questions
Mayor Drapeau's decision whether to go to Moscow or not was one which was entirely for him to make, and the government has not been involved in that decision. My department has had no contacts with the mayor in relation to the idea of sending two teenagers to carry the flag.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I asked whether or not the government had approved of the decision and the minister is now stating that it was in no way involved, which is contradictory to newspaper reports in which an official of the Department of External Affairs said that the decision was approved Wednesday. I presume, then, that the minister is saying there was no one from the Department of External Affairs involved and, indeed, no one from the Prime Minister's office involved in discussing this matter with Mayor Drapeau.
I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to make that statement very explicitly. Second, 1 woud like to ask him if in the discussion which took place between the Prime Minister's office and Mayor Drapeau's office-which I am sure he will find out took place-any other suggestion was made as to how the flag could be taken to Moscow. For instance, was it suggested that the flag be delivered to the Soviet embassy here, in Moscow, or was it suggested that it be delivered personally to Lord Killanin?


An hon. Member:: This is Ottawa.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I have to assure the hon. member that this is Ottawa, not Moscow, so it could not be handed over "here, in Moscow" as she stated.


An hon. Member:: We are not all perfect like you.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am not aware of any permission being granted by the government in this regard. Canadians are free to travel abroad to any country which has diplomatic relations with Canada, as the hon. member knows better than I.
In relation to the question of the boycott, again the government's position was that the COA was requested to refuse the invitation for our athletes to go and participate. The question of whether the mayor decided to go-and apparently he has decided not to go-is a matter purely for the mayor to decide, and not a matter for this government. The question of what representatives he might choose to carry the Olympic flag is, again, a question for Mayor Drapeau to decide, and not for this government. I am unaware of any conversations involving a department of this government and the mayor as to who would be appropriate to carry the flag tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I will direct my supplementary question to the acting prime minister, who at least might be able to address the point that 1 am raising, and that is the contradiction of Canadians taking part in the official opening ceremony of the Olympic Games when at the same time the government says that we are boycotting the Olympic Games. That is the contradiction, and I want the government to face up to it.

June 27, 1980
Oral Questions
What 1 want to know is whether or not there is a boycott; it is that simple. If Canadians take the flag and participate in the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games, then surely we are not participating in a boycott in the same way that we are asking the farmers to participate in a boycott, or the businessmen or, indeed, the athletes.
Some hon. Members; Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that indeed we are supporting the boycott. It has been declared to be our policy and the evidence of that is the fact that Canadian athletes, in terms of the government, have decided not to participate.
As the Minister of Labour has stated, I am not aware of conversations between any governmental officials and the mayor of Montreal. I will check into that, but I would suggest to the hon. lady that perhaps it is overkill to protest as vigorously as she has to the transmission of the flag in the way that is proposed.


TESTING BY FRANCE OF NEUTRON BOMB WARHEAD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the acting prime minister. It relates to international affairs and perhaps the potential of another boycott or at least severe sanctions.
Within the last 24 hours the government of France, normally a civilized country, a member of the western family of nations and a close ally of Canada, has gloatingly announced that it has perfected the capability of exploding a neutron bomb warhead, an announcement that could only be made after extensive field tests and extensive field explosions.
My question to the acting prime minister, is what exactly does the Government of Canada hope and expect to do in the face of such an announcement, especially when Canada is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, a signatory to the test ban treaty, and when Canada in many other ways has taken a belated lead against such a development as that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have noticed the press reports to which the hon. member has referred in his question. Obviously, if they are confirmed to be true, the development is very serious indeed. The Prime Minister today, in Sweden, has stated that if these reports are held to be authentic, Canada indeed would be very much opposed and would protest vigorously against this policy of the French government.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I am not getting through to the acting prime Minister. I am not talking about the usual mild, obviously ineffectual, mealy-mouthed protests which come from this government in matters such as this.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: 1 am asking the acting prime minister, if he is not in a position today to make an announcement, will he give serious consideration to very real sanctions against the government of France? Some of us believe that this is a greater threat to the security and future of the world than even the Afghanistan invasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am not sure that the hon. member understands what he is saying when he is proposing at the present stage that Canada announce a policy of economic sanctions against France. I think he would want to consider that a little more carefully before he repeats it.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Not in this case.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister will know that the Bank of Canada rate is now 10.63 per cent. However, the prime rate charged by the chartered banks of Canada is almost a full two percentage points above that, in complete contrast to the situation which prevailed two years ago with a reflected drop in the chartered bank rate corresponding to the Bank of Canada rate.
Since this means the banks are making higher profits and are not passing on to the people of Canada the economic benefits which should come from a lower Bank of Canada rate, I should like to ask the minister what he is doing about this.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, 1 would suggest that the hon. member direct his question to the Minister of Finance.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I made the mistake of assuming that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was interested in what was happening to consumers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 27, 1980


John Edward Broadbent: We will see if the Minister of Finance demonstrates any more concern. Since it is clear that the chartered banks are not now passing on to the people of Canada the benefits of the lower rate charged by the Bank of Canada, could the minister tell the House what the government plans to do about this extraordinary, unfortunate situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 want to tell the hon. member that the chartered banks have to take responsibility for their own conduct and will have to justify it before the hon. member and before the Canadian people. There is no power within the Government of Canada or within the Bank of Canada to dictate and establish interest rates by the banks or any other financial institution in Canada. I think he is as aware of that as I am.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the banks are not only doing that with the prime rate on the loans they pass out to their special customers. It could benefit the economy if they were passing on the lower rates, thereby stimulating the economy and producing more jobs. They are doing the same thing with mortgages, which remain a full two percentage points higher today than they were two years ago, when the Bank of Canada rate was approximately the same as it is today.
Would the Minister of Finance confirm this point? Is he saying that the Government of Canada does not plan to take any action to ensure that the economic benefits of the lower official Bank of Canada rate are passed on to the economy and home owners in Canada? Will he stand by and let the banks of Canada rip off the people of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada has been intensely concerned throughout the course of this year with the very high level of interest rates, beginning with the high level of the bank rate. As the hon. member knows, the bank rate has experienced a very significant drop from a high of more than 16 per cent to less than 11 per cent now. That is to be welcomed. Obviously, the rates in the economy to some extent will be influenced by the bank rate.


John Edward Broadbent: They have not been; that is the point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But the hon. member will realize there is a certain lag between the action taken by the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks. The government is not indifferent to this situation: it will be monitored very carefully. At the present time it is not the intention of the government to seek legislation to establish rates for all financial institutions in Canada, which is what is implied by the hon. member's question.
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the acting prime minister and it stems from my proposed motion under Standing Order 43 of yesterday concerning the situation in Southeast Asia.
Will the acting prime minister indicate what instructions were carried by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in relation to his attendance at the ASEAN meeting in Kuala Lumpur, and will he say whether there will be a condemnation of this further incursion into another country in Southeast Asia by Vietnam?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am not ready to tell the hon. member what detailed instructions have been given to the minister, or what instructions he has given himself, as to his conduct at the meeting. I will take the hon. member's question as notice and attempt to advise him later.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, when we consider that thousands of refugees who have escaped from Vietnamese atrocities in Kampuchea are now being threatened again as a result of these incursions into a neighbouring sovereign state, surely at this time the government should be prepared to stand up, be counted and say what it is prepared to do in the way of condemnation, and in support of Thailand. Is this government just going to sit here and do nothing? That is my question, Madam Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is very strong on words. He has used quite a number of words, with which 1 totally agree, in description of the present situation.


SHIPMENT OF GRAIN DELAYED BY WILDCAT STRIKE OF WEST COAST LONGSHOREMEN-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I have a question which perhaps should be directed to the Minister of Labour, but I think I should like to address it to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board in that it relates to the orderly movement of grain.
In view of the fact that one-third of the west coast longshoremen went out on a wildcat strike yesterday, immediately slowing down the movement of grain, and in view of the fact that farmers cannot at this time tolerate any additional problems associated with difficulties resulting from inclement weather and the high cost of production, is the minister aware of the situation and what is he going to do about it?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Madam Speaker, I was made aware of that situation this

June 27, 1980
Oral Questions
morning, but details were very few. I will become involved in this matter as soon as I can, to see whether something can be done from the point of view of the federal government.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, could we have the assurance of the minister that this will be done today, in that it is my understanding a two-day delay in taking action will result in the backing-up of grain on the west coast, creating problems in movement and increasing the cost of farm operations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, within the limitations of my powers I will make sure that we become fully informed on that matter this afternoon.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning the Industrial Biotest Laboratories' results and I wish to assure her that I, also, am not interested in unduly alarming Canadians. However, I am concerned that Canadians are not being told everything about the safety of certain pesticides.
The Saskatchewan minister for the environment is quoted as saying there was nothing substantially new in the letter he received from the minister. Could the minister inform the House if and when she will make public the generic names of the chemicals involved and the trade name of any product they might be found in, and will the minister assure us that the list of chemicals she released in her press release outlined exactly the same chemicals the United States government acknowledged are the ones under question?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I do not want to act as a scientific expert but it seems to me that if the hon. member, for safety purposes, is asking for the generic names of a specific series of 97 pesticides whose tests have not been validated and on which we are now working, he is jumping to conclusions, because it would involve many other products whose proportion of constituents is not the same. I am not quite sure whether his question is acceptable. The House will understand why 1 would want to check with my officials to see whether that specific aspect of his question is acceptable.
He has not given me enough information. He refers to a letter to a minister. I am constantly in communication with them. I do not remember such a letter. I will check. 1 hope I have answered his question, to wit what additional information can be added to the letter.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. In view of the extra concern, anxiety, money and time involved in allowing these chemicals on the Canadian market because we are dependent upon the results of laboratories which are foreign-owned, like 1BT, will the minister assure us that she will impress upon her colleague in Treasury Board the need to approve the establishment in Canada of a public toxicology lab in order that Canadians will be assured that the chemicals they are using and eating are indeed safe, and in that way will not have to wait eight years before getting that assurance?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, that second question nurtures Canadian nationalism which exists everywhere. At times that is good, and at times it is bad. The hon. member's suggestion seems to me to be a dream. I am sorry to be that blunt and that frank, but we have a population of 22 million or 23 million, not 230 million. In any case when we can benefit from the exchange of information between countries, particularly the United States, instead of duplicating services, I am in favour of it, especially when it provides us with information we cannot obtain in our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, I also have a question addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has to do with the despicable practice on the part of some provincial governments, notably Ontario, whereby every time disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan are increased, there is a corresponding decrease in provincial social assistance benefits, thus cancelling any possibility for the people affected to keep up with inflation.
Will the minister inform this House whether she intends to raise this matter forcefully with her provincial counterparts in order that this gross injustice is brought to an end?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I know of this unfortunate practice in several provinces. If my colleague refers to the $35 increase which will not be fully passed on, I can assure him that I think we have reached the point where we must put that matter on the agenda of the national conference on pensions so that it can be discussed in the open by all Canadians.
Unfortunately, this practice may become a deterrent in respect of future increases required to the GIS to take everyone out of the poverty level. As to those below 65, what happens when provinces unfortunately divert funds is that the lag, I'ecart between people below 65 and over 65 is intolerable to Canadians.
June 27, 1980


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Dubin inquiry into air safety is being told practically on a daily basis that safeguards and information which could prevent air accidents are being ignored. As this situation has existed for years, will the minister now call for the resignation of his aeronautics director, Mr. Walter McLeish, and give us some assurance that corrective measures are being taken now, and will he assure us that he will not wait until next October for his department to enforce safety standards in respect of aircraft and pilots?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will not accommodate my hon. friend. Measures have been taken over a period of time to improve the safety control capacity of the department: for example, regional offices have been created in order to be closer to the scene of accidents, and things of this kind.
1 answered the question in a more general tone the other day when I said that, of course, testimony is given to the Dubin commission. The judge has the responsibility to filter the material received and to bring forward recommendations. 1 think we have to wait until he does so before implementing any recommendations which he might make.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. In view of the serious charges being made at the inquiry, will the minister consider asking Mr. Justice Dubin to give an interim report? A number of years ago a directive went out from the aeronautical licence inspection branch of the department, not to enforce safety regulations because that might embarrass the minister. Is this directive still in force, and will the minister call for an interim report from the judge?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is not, Madam Speaker. It has often been said by my predecessors that this directive, as the hon. member termed it, is not to be implemented. This has been made very clear.
On the subject of the Dubin inquiry, I should like to emphasize the fact that it is not only a question of the number of inspectors. There are things that have to be changed in the law itself, there are things that have to be changed in the penalties that exist in the law, and there are things that have to be changed in the implementation of that law in terms for example of the court not being severe enough. It is a multifaceted problem. That is why I think it is desirable to wait for the Dubin report before taking action.
Oral Questions


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the impending freedom of information legislation, and the government's supposed commitment to the policy of openness initiated by the Leader of the Opposition when he was prime minister, could the minister tell the House why salaries of senior public officials appointed by order in council are now to be kept so unspecific as to amount to keeping the public in the dark as to how much the salaries are that are being paid?


An hon. Member:: We know what you make, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if I may reply to the question presented by the hon. member, I would tell him that when it came to my attention that this information on salary ranges had not been included in the lists, I undertook to ensure that in future when these salary ranges have been established as the result of a current review they will be included as part of the information.


INCLUSION IN LEGISLATION OF PROVISIONS FOR INFORMATION ON SALARIES
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I take that as an undertaking by the acting prime minister, although he has not indicated why they were excluded in the first place.
May I ask the Secretary of State to assure the House that the proposed freedom of information bill which he is about to present to the House, or will present very shortly, will be so drafted that the information which the acting prime minister has said will become available will, in fact, be available under that bill?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, we are presently in the drafting stages of the information bill to which the hon. member refers. I believe that the hon. member will find, in that bill, that we are trying to be as open as possible and to make as much government information available to the public as is possible. In that sense, we have been to a great extent inspired by the bill introduced by the hon. member.
I hope he will await the tabling of the bill which, as I indicated before, I hope will be, at the very latest, in the last week of the sitting of this House. Anyway, I hope to table it before the House adjourns for the summer recess.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, if we are that close to finality with respect to the drafting processes within cabinet-I asked the minister this question before, but he could not answer so precisely-could he tell the House today whether the bill contains provision for an independent judicial review of the decisions of ministers or others who withhold information?

June 27, 1980
Oral Questions


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I always heed the advice I receive from the hon. member. Just a week ago he advised me, in very strong terms, not to tell tales out of school. I would ask him, therefore, simply to wait for the bill to be tabled. I can assure him that there will be in the bill not only a commitment to freedom of information but a commitment to an independent form of review.
*
* *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs perhaps I could put my question to the acting minister, the Minister of National Defence. My question centres on Ken Taylor and it is a very simple one.
As it has been reported that there is a possible posting for Mr. Taylor as consul general in New York, would the minister indicate if this is under consideration? If so, why cannot it be announced without any further delay?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I have great admiration for Mr. Taylor and what he has done in the name of Canada. As acting secretary of state for external affairs, I think I can tell the hon. member that there has been some discussion about this but no decision has yet been taken. I think Mr. Taylor is capable of going to New York or any other place suitable to his qualifications: he is a good man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, we certainly agree with the minister that Ken Taylor is a good man. In view of his immense good will in the United States, I will put my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for Trade.
Would the minister agree that if Mr. Taylor had a suitable appointment, say that of consul general in New York, it would have an immense bearing on some of the negotiations now taking place in the United States and, in particular, on the auto pact negotiations that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is now engaged in?
Hon. fid Lumley (Minister of State, Trade): Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is very knowledgeable about the qualifications of Mr. Taylor. I think wherever Mr. Taylor is posted will be of benefit to Canada.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Al MacBain (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, but in his absence I shall put it to his parliamentary secretary. Is he aware that two nuclear waste dumps have been recently identified in New York state in the immediate vicinity of the Niagara River? If so, would he assure this House that steps are being taken by Environment Canada to ascertain whether the presence of such dumps poses a further threat to the water supply of Niagara on the Lake, in particular, and in general to the quality of life in my riding arising from possible air pollution from such dumps?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I am aware of the press reports on the existence of this second nuclear waste dump. Our officials are presently checking the accuracy of the reports. The information on the existence of this site comes to light now, I understand, as a result of the declassification in the United States yesterday of a report on the subject dated 1949.
The important question which this raises in so far as Canada's concerns are involved is the implications for water quality in the Niagara area and, in particular, the implications this information may have for two agreements between Canada and the United States, namely, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Boundary Waters Treaty. We have these matters under advisement.
* *
*


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On Easter Sunday, April 6, a methanol spill occurred in the CPR yards in Winnipeg. This spill, along with similar spills in Mississauga and Macgregor, Manitoba, has raised serious questions about the continued safety of all residents of Winnipeg.
Given the impossibility of evacuating the whole of the city of Winnipeg, and the call on June 4 by Winnipeg city council for a Canadian Transport Commission formal inquiry, will the minister direct the CTC to hold an inquiry, with full subpoena powers, so as to ensure the continued safety of the people of Winnipeg?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the CTC has inquired about this spill. I shall make sure that my hon. friend receives a copy of their views as soon as I get them myself.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I hope the minister will make that inquiry soon. Not only the safety of the residents of the
June 27, 1980

city of Winnipeg is at issue, but there is also the question of the social and economic conditions of that city.
I would like to know, by way of a supplementary question, whether the minister would be willing to make a commitment to railway relocation in Winnipeg, which would remove the safety question, by way of dollars so that the DREE funds for revitalization in that city are not wasted.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this decision has been made as far as the Department of Transport is concerned. We are providing for grade adjustments in Winnipeg by way of the Urban Transportation Assistance Program. The value of our contribution is in excess of $7 million.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Some time ago the minister announced certain subsidies to provide financial assistance to hog producers who are currently experiencing difficulties.
Now, according to certain representations which were made to me, 1 am informed that one category, also nicknamed the "nurseries"-that is, piglet producers-seems to have been forgotten by the minister in his generous initiative. Could the minister tell the House whether he is examining the situation of these piglet producers and whether he intends eventually and as soon as possible to announce adequate subsidies for that category of producers as well?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I say to the hon. member through you that many people have made representations along the same lines the hon. member is making at the present time. These have come from both sides of the House and from all parts of Canada where piglet producers are operating. We had meetings as recently as two weeks ago with some of them because they have no over-all, national organization. We are putting a submission together which 1 hope will be considered in the next few days.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. In order for me to know just what to say to those who ask, would the minister tell us whether these producers will be helped eventually or whether we will have to tell them that the government is not prepared to do that?
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, under the Stabilization Act the finished pork product is named, so by law you have to make a stabilization payment. When the price is below the cost of production you use the five-year averaging plan. In the current year the input is costed, and you come up with a figure. We shall be spending on that program between $45 million and $50 million; that is for the finished product.
There is no such thing as a named product for the piglets, the weaner pigs that are produced by the people who are finishing the product. Therefore, those people are suffering terrible economic hardships; we know that, Madam Speaker. I have to put forward a new submission to cabinet for consideration. We are in the throes of doing that at the present time.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the Minister of Transport advise the House whether a decision has been made regarding the appeal to cabinet on the route between Toronto and Halifax?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I know a number of members of the House want the answer to this question now. I can see some on the other side too. Yes, indeed a decision has been made. The gist of it is that Eastern Provincial Airways will fly direct, non-stop from Toronto to Halifax and return.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: EPA will abandon its direct Halifax to Montreal route, obviously maintaining other routes where there are intermediate points, such as Charlottetown, Fredericton and Saint John.
Canadian Pacific Airlines could fly non-stop from Montreal to Halifax and from other points, for example, Ottawa and Winnipeg. After long reflection and discussion on this matter, we think this is a compromise which is very much in the interest of all of Canada, particularly of the Atlantic region. In this way, the regional air carrier, namely, EPA, has a chance to demonstrate its capacity to serve adequately the Toronto-Halifax route and to strengthen itself also economically as a regional carrier. At the same time, the Atlantic provinces could receive travellers, particularly tourists from western Canada flying via CP Air.

June 27. 1980
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT THROUGH METROPOLITAN TORONTO- DISCUSSIONS WITH M-TRAC
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. About two months ago I wrote to the Minister of Transport inquiring whether he would be prepared to meet with representatives of a new organization in Toronto called M-TRAC, which is the Metropolitan Toronto Railway Action Committee, with regard to their very real concerns about the movement of freight through metropolitan Toronto to non-metropolitan Toronto destinations.
1 also raised this matter about a month ago by way of a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. To date, 1 have not received a response. Could the minister state today whether he is prepared to meet with representatives of M-TRAC; and, if so, when he would be able to do that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, 1 try as hard as I can, within a 27-hour day regime, to meet as many groups as I possibly can. I am sorry if I did not accommodate this one. I will see to it immediately.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, we are asking the minister to try just a little harder. Possibly he could answer his mail. Is the minister aware that chemicals are being shipped from Sarnia to points north and east of metropolitan Toronto and are being moved directly through residential areas of metropolitan Toronto.
In addition, is the minister aware that CP Rail is soliciting freight business from the Michigan area in the United States which is destined for the New England states but will be shipped through Canada, specifically through the residential areas of metropolitan Toronto? This is the reason for the concern of the residents of the area. I ask the minister whether he is aware of this and whether anything is being done about it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am very much aware that many municipalities in Canada are concerned with the transportation of dangerous goods. It is a growing preoccupation in Canada. That is exactly why we have Bill C-18 presently in committee, to develop criteria to streamline the regulations on the subject and, in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities, to develop a much needed safety control system. The bill really begins to answer that concern which is obviously a growing one in the country.


AIR TRANSPORT
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which is supplementary to a question asked concerning the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission. As I understood what the
minister said in this House, Eastern Provincial Airways will be permitted to fly direct from Halifax to Toronto and return, and CP Air will not be in competition with them.
Will the minister, first of all, indicate when the full text of his decision will be available, and will he indicate when we can have it so that we can study it? Will he, at the same time, confirm the basics of the decision with respect to the Toronto-Halifax flight?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, a communique is available now. I will see to it that my hon. friend gets a copy of it.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, as a supplementary to the minister, I hope he will bear in mind that the reason for this horrible decision of the Canadian Transport Commission was, in the first place, confusion over regional air policy. I would like the minister to undertake, now, to review the regional air policy so that Crown agencies and commissions, such as the Canadian Transport Commission, will not make this kind of mistake in the future.


An hon. Member:: Make it in the House.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, in my rather professorial approach to these questions, that review of policy has been going on.


An hon. Member:: That is a terrible insult to professors.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The decision is in accordance with that review. One of the main aspects of it has to do with the possibility of regional carriers serving an adjacent area. In this instance, the adjacent area is jumped one notch in order to include Toronto.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Why insult the academic community?


CITIZENSHIP ACT
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. I wonder if the minister will inquire into the practice under the Citizenship Act whereby Canadian residents applying for Canadian citizenship may be required to sign their applications in the script in use in their country of origin, not the script used prevalently in Canada.
Would he confirm which natives of which countries are required to sign in their original native script, or does this apply only to Chinese, whether they are of long residence in this country or of fairly short residence?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for drawing this concern to my attention. It is the first time it has been brought to my attention. I will be pleased to look into
June 27, 1980

the matter for the hon. member and get back to him. The point is indeed an interesting one and probably well taken. I will be delighted to look into the matter further on his behalf.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will the minister indicate in his reply, whether it be by letter or in the House, at the earliest opportunity what rationale there is for the discrimination which exists against applicants of Chinese origin signing not only their application forms but also possibly signing their citizenship forms in Chinese script?


Francis Fox: Yes, Madam Speaker. It is quite clear that we would not want to be in the position of discriminating against any Canadian citizens, whether new Canadian citizens or those who have been citizens of this country for a long time. Once again, I will be delighted to look into the matter, on behalf of the hon. member, in the spirit in which he has indicated.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, giving him an opportunity to do something now for consumers. As the minister knows, the Agriculture Canada food price index came out yesterday, showing that food prices have increased by 2.3 per cent, May 15 to June 15. Sugar prices, in particular, went up by some 7 per cent, reflecting an increase of 200 per cent to 300 per cent over the last few months.
Can the minister assure the House that there has been no profiteering by sugar companies in this country, or can he tell the House that he is contemplating an investigation into the sugar companies of this country because of the tremendous price increases we have seen in the last few months?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: It is obvious, Madam Speaker, that in reply to the first part of the question, I cannot give that assurance.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The minister replied in a very sugary way to the first part of my question, but he cannot give an assurance that there has not been profiteering by the sugar companies and speculators in this country, despite an increase of 200 per cent to 300 per cent in a few months.
In view of his admission, will the minister now consider launching an investigation into whether there has been some price-fixing or profiteering by sugar companies in this country? If he cannot give the assurance that there has not been profiteering, will he at least give us an assurance that he will
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen launch an investigation to see whether there has been profiteering or price-fixing?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, of course we are aware of the recent sugar price increases. The officials of my department are watching the matter with the same traditional and proverbial interest.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received:
Government House Ottawa
June 27, 1980
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable W. R. McIntyre, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 27th day of June, at 4.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be.
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clarify the situation for the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I want to tell her that I have checked further into the situation and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was consulted in London about the intention to send two representatives with the flag, and he concurred in that proposal.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: On the
same point of order, Madam Speaker. That, of course, is the question I was presenting initially. The minister responsible for

June 27, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. D. Munro sport said that there had been no communication. Therefore, it makes the point that I was raising all the more relevant, namely whether the Prime Minister, when he was consulted, pointed out the very real contradiction in Canada's position in that now we are officially supporting a boycott, according to the Prime Minister and this government, but at the same time we have two Canadians officially taking part in the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games. It does not seem that you can have it both ways. I wanted to know if the Prime Minister communicated with Mayor Drapeau when he was consulted about this decision.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, further to consultations I had earlier today with the other House leaders, I am pleased to confirm that, with regard to Bill C-36 respecting the national anthem of Canada, we have come to an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 75A, in order to dispose of this legislation in a very short and specified length of time.
Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 75A, I move:
That Bill C-36 go through each and every stage as follows and without interruption:
1.	On second reading, after one spokesman per party has been heard:
2.	In Committee of the Whole House, without debate, and with only one amendment pertaining to the coming into force of the said bill, such amendment being also passed without debate as proposed by the President of the Privy Council;
3.	At the report stage and on third reading, without debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order related to the use of unacceptable terminology in Hansard. It has been brought to my attention by that eminent watchdog of Canadian Parliamentary practice and procedure, our former colleague in the other place, Eugene Forsey, that some unparliamentary, if not indeed unconstitutional, language has appeared in Hansard, not, we hope, as a means of marking the centenary of that publication in Canada.
It is my understanding, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Forsey has also communicated with you on this matter, but it seems to me that the matter is of such importance that there ought to
be a record in Hansard of this serious transgression of the linguistic bounds that no Canadian Parliament can accept. In this way, hopefully, the error will not be repeated.
On April 24 of this year, and again on June 16 and 17, Hansard records an element of the day's proceedings in this manner at pages 368, 2153 and 2187 respectively:
Government Administration-Decree Respecting Establishment of Department of Social Development
This term was repeated in the index of each of the days in question. It is the word "decree" that exceeds the bounds, I contend, of parliamentary acceptability in English. What follows this heading deals with a proposed text of an order in council tabled in the House of Commons on April 21, at which time, as reported on page 206, incidentally, the term "decree" does not appear in the English version of Hansard. It is obvious that on the three or four occasions when the matter appeared as government business, it was an order in council that was at issue.
Having compared the English and French versions of Hansard in which this terminology occurs, I reach the conclusion that the English word "decree" has been employed as an all too obvious translation of the French word decret, because the original version was placed in French. Decreter may be an acceptable parliamentary word in the French language, but "decree" in English conjures up semantic vibrations which Mr. Forsey has said are altogether too reminiscent of imperial Rome and even imperial Russia.
Your Honour will permit me to reveal a bias at this point when I add that these sorts of vibrations connected with words such as "decree" are to be avoided at all costs when this present government is in power. This government needs no encouragement to proceed along those lines, and all the paraphernalia and baggage-as well as the terminology-of rule by divine right have got to be kept well beyond its reach.
Power, it has been said, does strange things to those who exercise it. It does even stranger things to those who exercise it for unusually prolonged periods of time; they get to like it and are prone to abuse it.
For this reason, if for no other, I urge that before the definitive version of Hansard recording the proceedings of the first session of Canada's Thirty-second Parliament is issued the offending term "decree" be expunged and replaced with the more acceptable English equivalent of decret, that is, "order in council".
A second matter related to this deserves comment. The so-called "decree"-or, as we now agree, I think, order in council-was said to deal with the establishment of a department of social development. It is clear, both from the form in which the order in council was drawn as well as from the discussion which centred around that particular order of business, that what was at issue was in fact the establishment of a ministry of state for social development, not a department, which is quite another matter. It is not a full operating department but a co-ordinating office.
June 27, 1980

i hope, therefore, having had earlier notice of this matter, that your Honour will ensure that the appropriate corrections appear in the definitive version of Hansard and in the index and, further, that your Honour will place an embargo on the use of the word "decree" in English as an acceptable translation of the word "decret" in French. Your Honour might even wish to rule that it be added to the list of unparliamentary expressions set out in section 320(2) of Beauchesne's fifth edition.


Madam Speaker:: 1 do want to say to the hon. member that we have received this communication, and the fact that he is now raising this point of order is very helpful.
The matter, I want to tell him, is already in hand, and the Editor of Hansard is going to see that these changes are made in the bound volume of Hansard.


Donald W. Munro: There is no aspersion on the Editor of Hansard; I want to make that clear.


Madam Speaker:: That point, too, is taken.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Portelance.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) (for Mr. Beatty)
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-38, to provide for the garnishment or attachment of Her
Committee Report
Majesty in right of Canada and for the diversion of pension benefits payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada under certain enactments.
I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Under our rules, since this bill deals with matters of royal prerogative, I must point out to the House that His Excellency the Governor General, having been advised of the provisions of the bill, has consented to the House taking, with regard to the said royal prerogatives, what decision it deems appropriate.


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

Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to bring forward the bill now on notice in the name of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger) so that it may be dealt with later this day when we deal with the changing of constituency names in private members' hour.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, that is in accordance with a discussion we had to accommodate private members, and in that spirit we concur.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed. [Translation]


Mr. Douglas Fisher (for Mr. Deniger) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-609, to change the name of the electoral district of Laprairie.


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

Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, after consultation with my colleagues, it has been agreed unanimously that the motion standing under the name of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), the chairman of the Standing Committee on Regional Development, be agreed to without debate.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion concerning the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 27, 1980
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Jean-Louis Leduc (for Mr. Pelletier) moved:: That the first report of the Standing Committee on Regional Development, presented to the House on Thursday, June 19, 1980, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 51, 116 (Corrected), 149, 304, 323, 609, 772, 805 and 911.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. R. A. Bandeen, President and Chief Executive Officer of the CNR, state on or about Thursday, March 27, 1980, that the entire western CNR route could be double-tracked by the end of the decade in accordance with traffic demands and, if so, what is the estimate of double-tracking to the extent mentioned by Mr. Bandecn?
2.	Did the Minister of Transport state on Wednesday, March 26, 1980, that he had anticipated that the double-tracking proposal would be 975 kilometres in length and, if so, will this become government policy?
3.	Was the minister quoted by the news media to the effect that 40 per cent of the CNR mainline from Winnipeg to Vancouver would be double-tracked by 1988 and, if so, is the minister stating government policy?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Within the context of remarks made at the press conference called by the Minister of Transport in Winnipeg on March 26, Mr. Bandeen referred to an earlier company statement on the subject of double-tracking by saying:
"Speaking to WESTAC here just two weeks ago, Ron Lawless, president of CN Rail, said that the ultimate in capacity would be a transcontinental railway. Referring specifically to double-tracking west of Winnipeg, he (Lawless) said that if traffic growth continued as at present, this might be both necessary, in terms of volume, and justifiable due to increasing revenues, but that it's not likely to happen in the 1980s."
Mr. Bandeen said that traffic projections showed that the major growth will be primarily west of Edmonton. He described the various sections of double-tracking planned and said that by 1988 CN expects to have completed doubletracking between Edmonton and Valemount, a distance of 308 miles, and about 35 per cent to 50 per cent of the line between Valemount and Vancouver, representinga further 160-230miles.
2 and 3. To be answered elsewhere.
Transport Canada advises as follows: 1. To be answered elsewhere.
2.	(a) The minister stated on March 26, 1980, that: "The present outlook is that by 1988 nearly 40 per cent of CN's main line between Winnipeg and Vancouver will be double-tracked." However, the minister was reported as having stated at the press conference that "the percentage of double-tracking proposed represents about 975 kilometres (605 miles)".
(b) The minister also stated that: "To the extent that double-tracking was needed to ensure that an adequate level of capacity was provided to meet growing Western needs during the 1980s, the government would ensure that CN took the necessary steps and had the resources to do it."
3.	The following, with respect to question 3, were quoted in the newspapers:
"40 per cent of the Winnipeg-Vancouver line could be double-tracked by 1988."
"CNR will double-track 40 per cent of its mainline between Winnipeg and Vancouver probably by 1988." "The railway will double-track at least 40 per cent of the line by 1988."
"The railway already has realized that its plans to doubletrack up to 40 per cent of the Winnipeg-Vancouver run wasn't enough for expected demand by 1983 so that an increase over 40 per cent by then is inevitable."
PUBLIC SERVANTS WORKING IN HULL Question No. 116 (Corrected)-Mr. Cossitt:
1.	In each of the past six years, what was the total number of public servants working in the Hull, Quebec area?
2.	What is the total at the present time?


Mr. Robert Daudiin (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: 1. During the last six years, the number of public servants working in the Hull area (Quebec) was as follows:
December 1974	3,988
1975	4,812
1976	5,341
1977	5,709
1978	14,511
1979	15,904
2. In March, 1980, the number of employees working in the Hull area (Quebec) was 16,214.
Note: (1) The data reflect the number of employees on strength reported by departments and agencies in respect of which Treasury Board is the employer-Part 1, Schedule I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act-and who are working in the greater Hull area defined at this date as comprising: Aylmer, Lucerne, Deschenes, Gatineau, Templeton Ouest, Village de Templeton, Pointe-Gatineau, Hull, Buckingham,

June 27, 1980

Buckingham Sud-Est, Masson, Hull, Municipalite d'Hull Ouest, Pontiac, Eardly, Onslow Sud, Quyon, Val des Monts, Portland, Wakefield Est, Perkins, La Peche, Municipalite de Wakefield, Village de Wakefield, Ste Cecile de Masham and Masham Nord.
(2) Reason for the corrected reply: The Treasury Board Secretariat obtains its data from a central information system. At the time the first reply was prepared the change of work location from Ottawa to Hull had not been reported for 2,000 employees for the period March 19-December 31, 1979 and for 392 employees in January, 1980.


Mr. Cossitt: What is a list of all grants made under the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme since October 31, 1972 up to the date that this question is answered, that was given to municipalities within the former Constituency of Leeds and the present constituency of Leeds-Grenville and what was the total amount granted under the program?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: federal contributions to municipalities in the former constituency of Leeds and the present constituency of Leeds-
Grenville are as follows:			
		Contribution	Year
Constituency	Municipality	Amount	CommittedLeeds	Perth	$ 400,000	1977Leeds-Grenville	Brockville	2,122,026	1974,1975, 1976 and 197: (for 4 NIP areas)Gananoque	200,000	1976Prescott	1,125,750 Total $ 3,847,776	1976
Federal contributions under NIP were committed only between June, 1973 and March 31, 1978, the expiry date of the program. On a national scale during the same period the federal contributions committed total $199.3 million.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	During each of the past five years, what amount was charged to the province of (a) British Columbia (b) Alberta (c) Manitoba (d) Saskatchewan (e) New Brunswick (f) Nova Scotia (g) Newfoundland (h) Prince Edward Island for the operation of the RCMP within the province?
2.	What is the estimated additional cost to the government of maintaining the RCMP for federal responsibilities in the event that no future police force sharing or cost-sharing agreement is possible with the province where an agreement is presently in force?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: 1.
Order Paper Questions
1975/76	1976/77	1977/78	1978/79	1979/80$	$	$	$	$(a)	19,091,142	20,867,124	24,605,612	28,518,789	31,814,562(b)	13,273,271	14,824,487	17,850,808	20,723,170	23,918,874(c)	7,819,434	9,011,148	10.447,517	11,909,840	13.559,747(d)	10,384,916	12,709,857	14,691,373	16,832,311	18,306,063(e)	4,724,566	5,885,878	6,576,597	7.303,376	8,348,915(0	5,940,608	6,387,217	7,500,456	8,651,325	9,674,715<g)	5,248,988	6,696,660	8,028,944	9,684,950	11,293,118(h)	1,327.790	1,499,181	1,662,857	1,836,266	1,902,753
2. None.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) other employees were on the payroll of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as at March 31, 1979?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am
advised as follows by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: CMHC had (a) 3,393 permanent employees and (b) 455 contract employees on the payroll as at March 31, 1979.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has no lawyers on its staff. Lawyers assigned to the department (13) are employees of the Department of Justice.


Mr. Cossitt: To the knowledge of the government, when will the new form of milk which does not require refrigeration and which will keep in sealed containers for at least six months be available to the general public and will the Department of Agriculture do anything to help promote the sale of such milk in order to assist the dairy industry?


Eugene Whelan: Currently, the ultra high temperature (UHT) milk is produced in Quebec and Alberta and distributed in Newfoundland and British Columbia.
In the near future, it will be produced and distributed in Ontario and, later this year, production will commence in British Columbia.
Agriculture Canada has helped to promote its production by providing technical expertise in the evaluation of applications for DREE grants for production facilities and by supplying the trade and public with information relating to the new product.


Mr. Clarke: Has the Department of External Affairs undertaken any construction during the past three fiscal years at the Canadian Embassy in Tokyo and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) at what cost (c) is the construction completed at present?

June 27, 1980
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Department of External Affairs has not undertaken any construction during the last three fiscal years at the Canadian embassy in Tokyo.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is it necessary to have federal and provincial approval to admit to Canada, as an immigrant, the spouse of a Quebec resident?
2.	In each of the past three years, how many such sponsorship undertakings has the Department of Employment and Immigration been unable to process because of a failure to obtain approval from the Government of Quebec?


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. No. While the admission of an independent immigrant to Quebec requires approval from that province, the admission of a spouse, i.e. member of the family class, does not. This approach is consistent with the federal government's commitment to family reunification which is one of the objectives of the Immigration Act.
2. N/A.
*
* *


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 148 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.
Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 148 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cossitt: What is a list of all grants made under the Local Initiatives program since October 31. 1972, up to the time that it was phased out. for the former constituency of Leeds and the present constituency of Leeds-Grenville and what was the total amount granted under the program?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Francis Fox: that Bill C-35, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Francis Fox: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


NATIONAL ANTHEM ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture of Bill C-26, an act respecting the national anthem of Canada the Secretary of State.
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in accordance with the order of the House, the motion previously passed will have to be amended so that the bill can be referred to Committee of the Whole.


Francis Fox: that Bill C-36, respecting the national anthem of Canada, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a real honour for me today in this House to propose the second reading of the bill respecting the national anthem of Canada. 1 acknowledge that it is only through the unanimous consent of all parties that it is possible for us to proceed today to the consideration and, I hope, passage of the bill.
Madam Speaker, "O Canada" is considered by all Canadians as the national anthem of their country but it has never been proclaimed as such by Parliament. I therefore ask the House today to catch up with history and to grant legal status to a heartfelt tradition.
Before outlining the circumstances surrounding the writing of this anthem, I would like to go further back in history, to the origins of the word "Canada". Among the possible explanations of this name, one is that in the sixteenth century, the
June 27, 1980

Indians extended a warm welcome to explorer Jacques Cartier with demonstrations of joy, repeating the Algonquian word "Cantata", which meant "Welcome". Another explanation, quite as plausible, is that our country has been named after the Spanish words "Aca nada", which mean "There is nothing there". The Spaniards at the time kept repeating those words while sailing up the St. Lawrence because they could not see any sign of wealth. The situation has changed somewhat since then, and time has probably come, four centuries later, to replace the term "Aca nada", meaning "There is nothing there", by the words "O Canada", which mean "Here, there is something, starting with tolerance and richness of the mind".
For every Canadian, Canada is a huge land whose outline is indefinable, whose centre is everywhere, a land already rich with traditions and still full of promises, a country blessed with human and material resources.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier expressed the same idea in the following terms:
To those who have life before them, let my prayer be this: Remember from this day forth never to look simply at the horizon as it may be limited by the limits of the province, but look abroad over all the continent.
In June, 1967, a joint committee of the House and Senate was formed and given a mandate to study the question of the national anthem of Canada. This committee issued its report in February, 1968, and unanimously recommended that the government immediately adopt "O Canada" as the national anthem of our country. The committee recommended that the slightly modified version of Judge Robert Stanley Weir's text and the original of Sir Adolphe Basile Routhier's French text be adopted together with the music of Calixa Lavallee. This is the recommended version that I have the honour to propose to the House of Commons today.
Madam Speaker, a number of members on both sides of the House have expressed concern over some of the wording of the version recommended unanimously by the 1968 joint committee of the House and Senate. The Minister of State for Multi-culturalism (Mr. Fleming), members on this side of the House and, I am sure, on the other side of the House among all parties feel that some of the wording should be changed. Many would like to see the words "sons" and "native land" replaced-in the case of "native land" by the words "cherished land"-to better reflect the reality of Canada. 1 believe all members are sympathetic to these concerns. I would therefore like to assure hon. members that in the course of the next session the government would be more than willing to see the subject matter of a private member's bill on this question-


Walter David Baker: Or bills.


Francis Fox: -or bills, as indicated by the House leader of the official opposition, referred to the appropriate committee of the House for consideration.
At this point I should like to go back in time to present a brief history of "O Canada", to recount briefly the story of its origin and development over the years. Because this subject is
National Anthem
of direct, even personal interest to Canadians across the land, I believe many will want to trace the progress of the events which have led to the tabling of the proposal before us today.
Let us, first of all, journey back to the years shortly after confederation-back to the preparations for a great coming together in Quebec City in 1880 on the day of the feast of Saint-Jean-Baptiste. This was heralded, and rightly so, as a great occasion. The program included a grand banquet attended by the Governor General of the day, the Marquis of Lome, and his wife, the Princess Louise. Not only was the occasion to involve the highest leaders of state and church but it was expected to attract visitors from the already sizeable French community in the United States as well as participants from many distant parts of Canada.
It would appear from the records that the committee arranging the convention had plans for commissioning a patriotic song to mark the occasion and a competition was to be held. The winning entry would make its debut on June 24, 1880. But time went by and the group responsible for finding a patriotic song realized that it was too late to launch the competition. This turn of events resulted in the involvement of Theodore Robitaille, Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec. He was a man who must have combined a good deal of perception and inventiveness. He took the matter of the patriotic song into his own hands and approached Calixa Lavallee, one of the leading musical figures of his day, who had received recognition both at home and abroad. Lavallee seems to have accepted the assignment eagerly; he had sketched out the music on paper within a week.
Next, Lieutenant-Governor Robitaille approached a judge of the Quebec Superior Court, Adolphe Basile Routhier, who was well known as an orator and man of letters. Mr. Justice Routhier met the challenge with enthusiasm and produced the French lyrics of "O Canada" which have reverberated unchanged for almost a full century.
And so the song "O Canada" had its "coming out", so to speak, during the banquet attended by the Governor General of Canada and by the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec. The now well-known anthem thrilled the audience when first played on June 24, 1880. Surprisingly, though, nothing much was heard of "O Canada" for more than 20 years. Then, for some unexplained reason, it surfaced again.

In 1915, the newspaper Le Devoir published an article by Mr. Arthur Letondal which read in part as follows:
One cannot introduce in the vocabulary a new word or impose a patriotic song on the people. There has to be the right timing, and a set of circumstances which can stir the national spirit and gain its favour. This song, which certain people held in the recesses of their memory, took another 20 years to surface. For what reason? We cannot say. What we do know is that around 1900, by some sort of mysterious agreement, the groups with whom we came to be associated, started a propaganda in favour of what we then called Lavallee's anthem. Our concerts and our ceremonies ended with this song and enthusiasm for it increased every day. Things were in motion. Some editions were then published with English words and were spread across the country, where its adoption is now a certainty and its popularity well recognized.
2464

June 27, 1980
National Anthem
What we might call its first formal or official exposure in a purely English-speaking situation seems to have occurred at the military camp at Niagara in 1900 during a tattoo.
Five years later a Toronto company published the music with Sir Adolphe Basile Routhier's original French words and an English version by a Toronto physician, Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson.
In fact, during those early years, a whole catalogue of English lyrics was proposed to accompany Lavallee's music. The height of this flurry of poetic activity was related to the 1908 celebration of the three hundredth anniversary of the founding of Quebec City. It was around that time that the English version by Judge Weir was written and it is this version that generations of Canadians have adopted as our national anthem.
To me the Hon. Stanley Weir is representative of the culture of this country: born and raised in Ontario, he obtained his higher education in Quebec. During his career he served both as minister and speaker of the Quebec legislature and also as a judge of the Exchequer court.
"Lavallee's splendid melody", was the way Stanley Weir spoke of the music. Weir's lyrics and Lavallee's music struck a responsive chord in the hearts of a rapidly expanding cross-section of English-speaking Canadians. By the time our country entered the First World War, "O Canada" had become our best known patriotic song, even surpassing "The Maple Leaf Forever" in popularity.
During the celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of confederation, in 1927, the committee co-ordinating the national celebration published the music together with the words of Stanley Weir and Sir Adolphe Routhier. Again in 1938, "O Canada" was published and distributed for use at public functions and in the schools on the occasion of the visit of Their Highnesses, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth.
[ Translation]
The words of our national anthem, Madam Speaker, are important in both languages, and the bill before the House recognizes that importance. However, we know that an anthem is more than the sum total of its words. Does the feeling that grips us in the midst of a crowd as it starts to sing the national anthem stem only from the words? For my part, I feel it is rooted in a universal phenomenon: the manifestation of a need, as well as the will to belong to a group that is larger than the family cell or particular groups. It is also the manifestation of personal belief in values that are held as fundamental, such as our homes and our rights.
What is being asked of Parliament today is that it give a symbolic affirmation of national importance. Certain values are the very cornerstone of societies; they are expressed through signs and symbols that prove their everlastingness. The symbol doubtless does not give birth to the sense of belonging to a country, but it does contribute in no small
measure to its collective demonstration and gives us a means of expressing very simply our shared beliefs and emotions.
The question of a Canadian identity lies at the centre of our debate. To some, it is but a myth. To others, it is an indisputable fact.
As I said, Madam Speaker, Canadians already consider "O Canada" their national anthem. By giving force of law to that fact through a unanimous vote, the House of Commons will show, unequivocally, that certain values stand above current dissensions and political allegiances. In so doing, the House will set the example by enshrining one of the most unifying realities of our young collective history, "O Canada".
Constitutional reform will probably keep us busy in the next few months by requiring us once again to go beyond our daily concerns, since while having to see to the difficult job of governing a vast country, we shall also have to meet the urgent need to redefine this country so that it may reflect a reality which is already more than 100 years old.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the greatest temptation would be to take Canada for granted, to suppose that this great ship berthed on three oceans has lowered anchor for all times, to consider our privileged situation in the world as owed to us, and to allow our immediate problems to take precedence over our ideals.

As the historian Arthur Lower wrote more than 30 years ago:
In every generation Canadians have had to rework the miracle of their political existence. Canada has been created because there has existed within the hearts of its people, a determination to build for themselves an enduring home. Canada is a supreme act of faith.

Madam Speaker, beyond the simplicity of the melody, and in the inspiration which carries it, the anthem "O Canada" can be for the majority of Canadians the symbolic confirmation of this determination.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the minister sits down, I wonder if he would accept one question for clarification. In the course of his statement he referred to the commitment which the government has made to the effect that in the next session any private members' public bills having to do with the wording of "O Canada" would be permitted to go to a committee for study. That commitment, of course, was part of the agreement arrived at this morning by the House leaders.
This is my question for clarification: Is it clear that that applies to any and all private members' bills put down in the next session, whether or not they are among those that are drawn at the top of the list?
June 27, 1980


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm to the hon. member that I agree with his suggestion that these bills be included whether or not they are in the first 50 to be tabled. We have no objection to the subject of these bills being referred to the appropriate committees for study and consideration.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, just so that the consent will be unanimous and silence will not be taken as a question, let me confirm that that was indeed the discussion we had, and I am delighted that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised the point.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my leader, our House leader and then the members of our caucus for giving me, a relatively new member, the opportunity of being the speaker on behalf of my party in supporting this legislation. I should also like to congratulate the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) for his very fine remarks.
The national anthem is a matter that is very near to my heart, as I am sure all members realize. As I intimated before, I intended to raise the matter in the Thirty-first Parliament when 1 learned that all copyrights of the Routhier-Lavallee-Weir version of "O Canada" expired on January 4, 1980, and at last rested in the public domain.
I should like to ask how many countries in the world today have no official anthem. There are very few. However, we in this great nation of Canada are in that unique position. "O Canada" is not officially ours and the song that our children proudly sing in school is not official.
In this august chamber, 282 members are dedicated to the principle of national unity and many moving speeches have been dedicated to that end recently. I ask, is it not sensible to begin a new spirit of unity, a spirit of confederation, by officially embracing the national anthem "O Canada"?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: On June 6 the Post Office Department issued a pair of commemorative stamps, the subjects of which were the music and stylized portraits of the composers of "O Canada". On each miniature pane was the message, "Issued to celebrate Canada Day 1980". Yet that anthem is still not official.
Can you picture the United States without the official "Star Spangled Banner"? Can you imagine the stirring "La Marseillaise" not being the official French anthem? We have "O Canada", a moving anthem in both languages but never recognized by Parliament in a statute. I believe this to be tantamount to sacrilege.
On May 23, 1980, during the debate on my private member's bill to designate "O Canada" as the national anthem of this land, the Secretary of State committed the government to the introduction of legislation which would accomplish this deed. Today this has come to pass. While the bill before us is
National Anthem
not the same one I introduced as Bill C-220,1 would hope hon. members might leave this chamber today with "O Canada' declared our official national anthem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: I have received many telephone calls and letters from people all across this nation who are astounded to learn that the Weir version of "O Canada", which has been in common usage in English for nearly 100 years, is not official. We as members of this House would be derelict in our duty if we do not leave this chamber today with "O Canada" enshrined as part of our country's heritage.
I must state categorically at the outset that I champion the complete English words of Weir which we all know by rote and of which we are so proud. I should like to add that the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) has his own opinion as to the word "native" which has been mentioned. I should like that to be in the record.
Also, the hon. member for North York (Mr. Gamble) is very keen on what was discussed by House leaders here today and the fact that the subject matter would be dealt with in private members' bills. I think the whole matter has been commendable and highly above board. I think we can all be proud of what is going on here today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Continuity with the familiar and well-loved words is essential. Tradition is more essential than quibbling over just a few words. We are all aware that there is not one national anthem which will satisfy all people, be it the sentiments, the words or the music.
The Weir version of "O Canada" is Canada's anthem in the hearts of Canadians. It has been sung and played too often in the past 100 years to be neglected. Using the Weir words would be by far the most realistic and simplistic approach, in my view. However, the government's Bill C-36 changes only nine of the original Weir version words. I hope the NDP members to my left will not be sanctimonious in their obstruction by being picayune in their interpretation of just a few words. I want it placed on record that the Conservative party is unanimous in its support that "O Canada" be declared our official national anthem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: The French words and music remain the same. I think it apropos at this time to mention that Bill C-36 corresponds, as the minister of state pointed out, identically to the report of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons of May 19, 1967. I might add that the committee held 12 meetings. It listened to many representative groups and perused more than 1,000 proposed lyrics. The unanimous recommendation of that committee was the version now before us as Bill C-36.

June 27, 1980
National Anthem
A nation's destiny is not in its learning or the amount of information it acquires; it is in its character. Mankind has found that feelings and convictions are conveyed more effectively in symbolic acts long understood and accepted, and that is "O Canada". A national anthem is the expression in words and music of the very essence of the patriotic fervour of a people. As eternal is the yearning for the peace in all civilized nations, it is perils confronted, the sufferings endured and the heroic sacrifices made in the time of war which intensify those feelings mankind from time immemorial has termed patriotism. Thus it is that almost all national anthems are martial songs.
Many national anthems began as popular songs which became favourites of the soldiers because their stirring rhythms made them ideal marching tunes, and suitable words were often added later. Other anthems are based on folk songs whose origins are lost in the mists of time. But not we Canadians; we went so far as to issue commemorative stamps on our supposed national anthem and its composers on June 6, 1980, long before the date of this bill, June 18. So I feel proud to have brought it to the attention of the government.
Rudyard Kipling stated:
Take 'old of the wings of morning.
And flop round the earth til you're dead;
But you won't get away from the tune that they play.
To the bloomin' old rag over'ead.
All these patriotic songs express feelings of deepest loyalty to the traditions, the ideals, the aspirations, to the very heart and soul of the lands in which they are sung. Such is "O Canada".
Custom and tradition are very real aspects of life but are hard to define precisely. Customs and traditions are living things. They reflect moral values and social conditions, and that is why "O Canada" must live. Custom may be said to be a long-established practice, an unwritten rule, dependent for its continued usage on long consent of society. Such is "O Canada". Tradition is the process of passing from one generation to another beliefs, feelings, codes of behaviour, a philosophy of life. Tradition is symbolism, for most people find it difficult to express spiritual and abstract ideas in a few words.
"O Canada" has its roots in the formation and development of this great nation. Its genesis goes back to the year 1880 when it was suggested that a competition be held for the composition of a national anthem. Some of the principals involved in the evolution of "O Canada" were Mr. Justice Routhier; the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, Dr. Theodore Robitaille; the famous French Canadian composer, Calixa Lavallee; music editor, Arthur Lavigne. It had its prime roots in French Canada. It was not until the turn of the century in 1908 that an English version composed by Robert Stanley Weir gradually came into use.
In 1924 the Association of Canadian Clubs endorsed Weir's version as a suitable anthem to be sung at all Canadian Club meetings. At the same time the Weir version was printed in many school readers in several provinces and was given official
recognition by the federal and provincial governments on many important occasions. The Weir version was used to mark the fiftieth anniversary of confederation on July 1, 1917.
As stated previously, the words in my private member's bill were those in common usage in both English and French. In 1948, by order in council it became the anthem of Canada's Armed Forces, and they were required to salute it. Similarly, the Department of External Affairs provided that "O Canada" be afforded the recognition of the national anthem of Canada. Also as stated earlier, in 1967 the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons recommended that the government be authorized to adopt the music of "O Canada" as composed by Calixa Lavallee as the music for the national anthem.
The original Weir version would be best but let us not prevaricate. At the present time there are records and printed cards in both official languages. Probaby many members are aware of them; 1 have them here. I would urge, whatever happens to this bill in the new version we come out with or if it remains the same, by private member's bill, that cards and records be printed immediately and that by working with the department of education in each province they are placed in every school in the land. We could educate at the television level also. I would recommend the national anthem be played for one year following the date of its acceptance at the end of the CBC newscast, superimposing the words on the television screen. I recommend that we use this opportunity of a broadcast publicity campaign for national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Canada's present has not arisen because of some strange miracle, as was pointed out across the floor as well, but because generations of men and women have been ready to stand for freedom, the rule of law, and to work with courage and dedication. Our hope must be that Canadians of today and of tomorrow will not forsake the idealism that inspired our forefathers and strengthened the purpose of the brave men and women who forged us a new country in a new world. The so-called old-fashioned virtues are as essential today as they ever were to the formation of a new generation worthy of our pride. Nothing can change the need in our national life for people who have industry, courage, charity, patriotism, loyalty and honour.
The designation of "O Canada" as our official national anthem will have symbolic significance and perhaps make a worth-while contribution to the cause of national unity. It may bring to all of us a deeper appreciation of our national heritage and a common feeling of national pride-pride in our forefathers, in their visions and indomitable courage; pride in a rich and generous land; pride in the growth and development of our country; pride in the Canadian people. Perhaps this pride can be expressed appropriately in the words of J. A. Ritchie when he said:
The wholesome sea is at her gates.
Her gates both east and west.
June 27, 1980

Then is it strange that we should love This land, our land, the best?
1 would like members to zero in on the nine word changes and to think in terms of what happens in the House from then on. The original Weir version of "O Canada" reads as follows:
O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
O Canada, Glorious and free,
We stand on guard, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
The version in Bill C-36 is as follows:
O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
This great nation needs and deserves an official national anthem. Whatever the decision is, we are looking at a change of only nine words. We are also looking at an enlightened group in this House, the members of which will discuss the subject matter in private members' bills. I take great pride in supporting Bill C-36.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in a few days Canadians will celebrate the anniversary of confederation. After 113 years, Canada still has no official national anthem. It is more than time, Mr. Speaker, for this House to adopt "O Canada" as our official anthem. For several generations, millions of Canadians have recognized the work of Calixa Lavallee in the national anthem. It would therefore be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for us to do the same on the eve of Canada Day.

1 therefore bring the views of my colleagues very much in support of the action the government has taken today, and I want in that context to compliment the hon. member, who has just spoken for the Conservative party, for his important initiative on the same subject. I fully support both actions and, indeed, the mandate expressed by all members of the House in the motion passed on May 21 calling for this action.
Canadians from coast to coast on Canada Day of this year will at long last be rising to sing the song as their official national anthem, a song which most of them thought for years already had been established as such. As I said a few minutes ago, it is an appropriate action to take at this time and is long overdue.
I want to say in this context that part of the understanding expressed by the minister in introducing the subject today is
National Anthem
that a committee will be struck during the next session to deal with some important changes in the wording. I want to underline two of them only; the expression "our home and native land" is one the minister has already indicated is of concern to the government. We have to recognize the fact that, apart from the important original people of this land, the rest of us are immigrants in our ancestry, as well as many immigrants who will become Canadians before very long, all of whom, I think would appreciate terminology other than "our home and native land".
Secondly, in this period of the evolution, slowly but importantly, of equality between the sexes, the line in the song "all thy sons command" should clearly be changed, to remove the obvious masculine bias, in favour of some alternative.
Those are two concerns members in all parties have which can be dealt with by the committee to which the minister has referred. Other members will then have the opportunity to express their concern about other specific words.
I want to conclude my comments by indicating that however one may differ, and whatever suggestions might be made about changes in the wording, some of which are important, the main point to be recognized today is that at long last we in this land will have our own national anthem. I think it is symbolically important that the anthem happens to have been written by a Quebecker. Particularly at this point in our history that is worth noting and worth stressing. It is something all of us in our land, whether we are from Francophone heritage or not, should be proud of. It is a good day for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon-Mr. Francis in the chair.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On Clause 3-Public domain.
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest the following amendment pursuant to the order of the House made earlier today.

Therefore, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton:
That Bill C-36 be amended by adding thereto, after clause 3 on page 1, the following:
"4. This act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation."


The Chairman:: Hon. members have heard the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
June 27, 1980
Bretton Woods Agreements Act Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be quite appropriate if at this time the House sang the national anthem.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: At this point hon. members stood and sang the national anthem.]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-5, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, the House had a wonderful hour between twelve o'clock and one o'clock p.m. today when all of us felt very good indeed in coming together in a moment of great symbolism for our country. This is excellent beginning to our celebration of July 1, the birthday of our country.
For the next little while in the House we will be plunged into the depths of the international financial arena. This is not as an emotional subject to be sure, but one that I submit is of importance to our country and to the role Canada plays in the important subject of world development.
As hon. members know, this debate was commenced on June 13 when the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) introduced Bill C-5 with a brief speech which I found acceptable and which, indeed, I support.
His speech was followed by that of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who made some observations on the use of the international monetary fund. He was speaking in his capacity as a former minister. At that time he said that, with regard to the whole subject of north-south dialogue, the hon. member for Edmonton South would be speaking later in the debate. Now, sir, we have arrived at that point.
It is very timely and instructive for us to consider that we are resuming our discussion on the amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreement Act following the Venice Summit last week. The Venice Summit issued a very important communique dealing with the whole subject of economic relations around the world. A section had to do with relations with developing countries, particularly their monetary problems. If we refer in this debate to the Venice Summit as a launching point, we bring very sharply into focus what this bill is asking us to do.
As I say, I support the general increase in quotas for IMF members. That is a good step toward the creation of a more stable world monetary system. I am buttressed in that comment when I read from the Venice communique issued earlier this week paragraph 28, which I now wish to put on record as it is central to the direction of this bill. What this bill is asking us to consider is very neatly conveyed to us in paragraph 28 which states, and I quote:
Private lending will need to be supplemented by an expanded role for international institutions, especially the International Monetary Fund. We are committed to implementing the agreed increase in the IMF quotas and to supporting appropriate borrowing by the fund, if needed to meet financing requirements of its members. We encourage the IMF to seek ways in which it could, within its guidelines or conditionally, make it more attractive for countries with financing problems to use its resources. In particular, we support the IMF's examination of possible ways to reduce charges on credits to low-income developing countries. The IMF and the World Bank should work closely together in responding to these problems. We welcome the bank's innovative lending scheme for structural adjustment. We urge oil-exporting countries to increase their direct lending to countries with financial problems, thus reducing the strain on other recycling mechanisms.
That is the end of paragraph 28 of the Venice communique. I have put it on record so that all those assiduous readers of Hansard, whose number is legion, will know what the Venice seven said, since it is very difficult from following the Canadian media to know with precision what happened in Venice. Very little attention was given in the media in Canada to that section dealing with developing countries, and indeed the section I have just read is taken from The New York Times.
Along with the Venice Summit, there is another document I wish to refer to which puts our debate in very sharp focus, the Brandt report. It was compiled by a distinguished group of 18 leading world citizens headed by the former chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Nobel peace laureate. Following some two years study, they issued a report entitled "North-South, A Program for Survival". It is an extremely important report. One of its recommendations deals with the reform of the monetary system. The recommendation of the Brandt committee is as follows:
A key element in international policies to increase monetary stability is to relate the distribution of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) to the financial requirements of developing countries.
Our debate this afternoon could not come at a better time, not only in light of the Venice communique and the publication of the Brandt report, which the London Times has called "the book of the year". It has not yet received sufficient attention or notice in our country. It is a report now published as a book. For the information of the readers of Hansard, I will mention that it is published by the MIT Press, the
June 27, 1980

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, in paperback, for $5.95. In my judgment, it is the single best exposition of the global condition that we face today with respect to economic and social development. This subject is of central concern at the United Nations, which is going to hold a special session on development beginning August 25. This is the first special session of the United Nations on development since 1975.
Another reason for the timeliness of the debate is the proposed north-south summit which will bring together some 25 world leaders from northern and southern countries. Discussions are now going forward to bring these 25 world leaders together in 1981. That is a principal recommendation of Brandt.
The Summit of the western seven which just met in Venice will meet again next year in Canada. There is every indication that the north-south question will be central to the summit at which Canada will be host. This must be taken together with the creation of a parliamentary task force on north-south relations, one of the special task forces established by this Elouse some time ago. When we put all that together, we see the urgency of Canada responding to the challenges that we face as we enter the next development decade, the 1980s. A round of global economic negotiations will begin following the special session of the United Nations general assembly on development.
From a bird's eye view, one can see the urgency of Canada formulating a position to be announced at the special session on how to break the north-south log jam that has developed over the last few years. I pay my compliments to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) who was a co-chairman of the forerunner to what will be north-south conferences throughout the 1980s, and a forerunner to the conference of economic co-operation otherwise known as the Paris conference of 1975-76. The Deputy Prime Minister was co-chairman along with his colleague from Venezuela. That was an important milestone in bringing together for high level discussions what can practically be done and where are the areas of priority. I will return in a moment or two to these special areas of priority.
With this sense of urgency I have outlined, I make my plea that Canada establish realistic, sensible policies with respect to food, energy, trade and monetary finance. Monetary finance is the centrepiece of the bill we are now debating. We have to consider the present state of the world. Why is this an urgent situation for Canada among its industrial partners, otherwise known as the north? Why is it important?
There again, if we look into the Brandt report we can see some very succinct summaries of the grave conditions which the world faces. In fact, Brandt says the world faces much greater dangers than at any time since the Second World War. The world economy is functioning so badly that it damages both immediate and long run interests of all nations. The problems of poverty and hunger are becoming more serious and, as we know, there are already some 800 million people living in extreme poverty and their numbers are rising. Short-
Bretton Woods Agreements Act ages of grain and other foods are increasing the prospect of hunger and starvation.
We have also to consider that over the next few decades the addition of two billion people to the population of the world will cause much greater strain on the world's resources. The industrial capacity of the north is underused, causing high unemployment, while the south, that is to say, the developing nations, are in urgent need of goods which the north can produce. Rapid inflation, erratic exchange rates and unpredictable interventions by governments are seriously disrupting international trade and investment.
We have had discussions in the external affairs committee particularly on this subject from time to time. I must say in passing that I find it disgusting that the Elouse of Commons so seldom debates questions of world economics bearing in mind the great importance of this subject. Nonetheless, we have an opportunity today to note that closing the gap between rich and poor is no longer just a matter of striving for social justice, though that goal is still paramount.
It is also essential to the continued development of the industrialized north. The north itself has more interest in common than is generally recognized, and this is what Brandt is trying to tell us. Energy, commodities and trade, food and agriculture, monetary solutions and inflation control, technological innovations, ground and space communications-these are some of the areas which are drawing us together whether or not we live in the industrial nations or in the developing nations.
I believe that what we have learned as we go into the third development decade is the need for a two-pronged approach in order to make progress in north-south relations, to ensure a better exchange of trade, a pace of development quicker than is presently taking place throughout Third World countries. There must be a renewed emphasis on basic human needs. That is the first element and that is where, in my view, official development systems programs administered by the Canadian International Development Agency have gone astray in the seventies.
I say this because the agency emphasized projects of a very large nature often to the neglect of the human needs of countries in great distress. Even at this moment, though we recognize there is great need today in countries like Zimbabwe, Uganda, Nicaragua and Kampuchea, the inflexibility of Canada's aid program prohibits us from dispatching money quickly to areas of great distress which the people of Canada would, I believe, be greatly concerned about assisting. For greater detail on this particular aspect, the inflexibility of Canada's aid program, I would draw the attention of hon. members to minutes of recent meetings of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
In any event, the first element of the two-pronged approach is greater emphasis on basic human needs within our aid program. The second is the reform of international institutions. Improvements must be made in the trade and monetary sys-


June 27, 1980
2470__________________________________________
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
terns of the world which were set up, in particular, at Bretton Woods. The bill we are debating today is to make amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements Act.
We must understand that an approach by these two avenues is at the heart of a realistic response by Canada to the needs of developing nations and one which ought to be advanced at the special session on development. We now have a better understanding of development than we did in those earlier years and I am not overcritical of what Canada has done. Indeed, I have great respect for many of the programs which have been undertaken and for many of the people who have been involved. 1 have great respect for them, indeed. But, as I say, 1 believe we have reached a better understanding as a result of our experience and that it ought to be applied as we consider this bill and attempt to advance a better policy for the 1980s.
The goal of development is now clear. It is to lead to self-fulfilment and creative partnership in the use of a nation's productive forces and to full human potential. This means adopting strategies and emphasizing improvements in the quality of life, not just in GNP statistics. Scientific, technological and economic opportunities should be developed to allow a more humane and social economic order for all people.
That is a little of the background to our present situation. Now, Mr. Speaker, along with the better understanding of development which we now possess, along with an emphasis on this two-pronged approach, we must consider that there is a mutuality of interests. We must consider that it is in the interest of the northern countries to participate more vigorously in exchanges with developing nations. It is certainly in Canada's interests.
The Harvard Business Review recently reported that 34 of the 500 largest international companies are now based in developing countries. This gives us cause for thought. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we often think of Third World countries as aid clients where the situation is one of unrelieved gloom and despair. While we must not underestimate the amount of suffering which still prevails in many countries, nonetheless-I speak from my own experience at having visited many of these countries in Asia, in Africa and in South America-a process of industrial development is taking place which is of great interest to Canada.
So far, though, our economic links with developing countries remain weak. Only 8 per cent of Canadian exports, including those financed by the aid programs, go to the Third World, yet 37 per cent of United States exports go to developing countries, 45 per cent of Japan's and 18 per cent of the European Community's. Similarly, only 12 per cent of Canada's imports come from developing countries as compared with 35 per cent for the United States, 53 per cent for Japan and 20 per cent for the European Community.
The overriding importance of the influence of the United States on Canada's trade pattern is well known and it cannot be overlooked. There is, nonetheless, a great potential for expanding Canadian trade and economic links with the Third World. This is a point which is developed at great length in the 1978 study of the Economic Council entitled "For a Common
Future-A Study of Canada's Relations with Developing Countries", in which we find advanced a very strong argument centred upon the fact that, if many foreign corporations are investing in the developing world, it is likely that Canada would suffer loss of markets and, consequently, of employment and profits if its firms do not do likewise. I quote, now, from the report:
We believe that the benefits to Canada from direct investment in the developing countries by Canadian firms most often clearly outweigh the cost.
There has been the creation of some committees recently at the business level. The business community is showing some signs of increased attention and interest in relating, in joint ventures, to the needs of the developing countries on a commercial basis. I think that is a good thing because, as the business community becomes increasingly aware of the trade potential with those newly industrialized countries, and as the business community becomes more convinced that it is in its interest to relate to developing world markets in the way that the United States, Japan and the EEC are relating, that will help to give Canadian business a wider view. CIDA has an industrial program in which it is putting seed money into starter studies, feasibility studies and so forth. That is also a good move, but much more is needed if Canada is to reach its full potential in relating to those vast, vast markets which are at the point of opening up for our country.
I think Canada is well placed to assist developing nations in utilizing computers, satellite monitoring and genetics to improve the world's food supply, in adapting microelectronic technology and decentralized production so that new manufacturing techniques can be integrated into rural societies and in dividing limited resources between telecommunications and transport which would enable villages and small industries to derive more benefits from new developments in communications technology.
That is just a highlight of the things that can be done and are being done by other countries and to which Canada must relate. I would say, in short, that the Canadian private sector, with expertise, technology and capital at its disposal, has a vital role to play in international economic development.
In large measure development is management. It is the management of the development of people and social and economic systems within a country. The spread of management techniques can be a critical factor in determining the course of world development over the remainder of this century. A man who is very familiar to members of this House and who is a very distinguished citizen and one of the architects of the Brandt report, Mr. Shridath Ramphal, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, said recently, and 1 quote: "There is a management role of massive proportions in shaping the kind of world that will greet the twenty-first century."
That brings me now to the essence of the Brandt proposals. I have said that I would like in the final moments I have here today to relate the Brandt recommendations to this larger framework of mutuality of north-south interest. We have to
June 27. 1980

look at Brandt in a very sweeping way at this moment, but again I say that the depth of his studies and of his recommendations merits very close attention by hon. members. Of course, it is now being given close attention by the parliamentary task force, but I speak at this moment to those officials of the government who are in the process right now of drafting statements and policies and I ask them to consider a way by which Canada can make a realistic statement of intention on how we are going to relate to this program of priorities set out by Brandt.
First, the priority needs of the poorest: that is to say, a major initiative in favour of the poverty belts of Africa and Asia is needed. Then the abolition of hunger, with more systematic food production programs. Attention must be paid to commodities. The proposed common fund to stabilize prices of primary commodity exports at a remunerative level needs adequate support. Manufactures, trans-nationals, technology in mineral development are major themes which need to be given our attention.
A new approach to development finance: Because in Brandt's analysis there is such a tremendous sense of urgency in the program, he has come down to suggesting four emergency programs which we ought to consider seriously. We should give our immediate attention to them.
Let us try to cut through this immensely complicated subject which is full of what 1 often call magnificent abstractions. Let us try to cut through and recognize that there are four essential things that can be done. They can be started. Canada can take leadership in building bridge. Canada can take leadership in advancing these programs at the special session on development.
The first is resource transfers. A total of an extra $4 billion from donor countries-all the donor countries of the OECD- should be directed to the poorest countries and regions most seriously threatened by the current economic crisis and provision should be made for financing the deficits of middle income countries.
Second is energy. There should be an international energy strategy to ensure more secure supplies, more vigorous conservation, more predictable changes in prices and the posturing of the development of alternative sources of energy.
Third is a broad program of food production and agricultural development to overcome food deficits in poor countries and to ease inflationary pressures in the world food market.
The fourth emergency provision is an immediate start on broadening the base of international financial institutions. In the industrialized countries there should be greater access to the processed primary products from developing countries, and serious steps should be taken to stabilize commodity prices. In developing countries expanded food production, decreased inequalities, increased internal co-operation, efficient and equitable use of transferred financial resources and the encouragement of a positive international investment climate are needed.
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
In that fourth category of an emergency program which Brandt asks be advanced by the industrial countries immediately, we find this present bill this afternoon inserted because we are asked to consider the enlargement of our quota to the IMF. This stability that an enlarged IMF would obtain would not only help Canada with its international transactions but also would help the developing countries take advantage of prospects in world trade and investments. The increase in quotas is but one step in the reform of the monetary system that is needed.
What are some of the precise things that need to be done to make some improvements in the IMF? The Society for International Development, the largest private, non-governmental organization in the development field in the world, has recently considered this situation in some depth. What that society is recommending is that the existing international Financial institutions and regional banks be considerably expanded by increasing their capital base. We are beginning to do that this afternoon with this bill, but their operational policies and structures should be thoroughly reviewed and reformed along with the expansion. In particular, the World Bank should increase its lending program from the current 2 per cent of the total to at least 10 per cent.
Second, the conditions of IMF loans should be intensively reviewed and revised in consultation with developing countries to ensure that an inappropriate and unfair burden of adjustments is not imposed on the developing countries in a short period of time.
Third, the voting structure and management of the Bretton Woods institutions should reflect much greater and more effective participation by developing countries in actual decision-making because, as we know, the Bretton Woods Agreements were set up in the late forties following World War II. Most of the countries which are now trying to develop their own economies were not countries at that time, they were colonies. They came to their political liberation throughout the fifties and sixties, and now we are faced with this international crisis in which countries do not have the financial or industrial capacity to meet the need for imports at high prices from the industrialized nations and cannot receive sufficient prices for the export of their primary commodities. I refer to those 18 principal primary commodities the prices of which are generally controlled by the consuming industrialized nations.
An accommodation must be made. That is the essence of the work of the United Nations, the Brandt report and of all those institutions that are now studying the heart of the economic condition of the world. It is sensible and practical to do that. I believe there is a very specific role for Canada to play. We have signed that Venice communique. I read paragraph 28 earlier. Canada is a signatory to that communique. I expect the Canadian government to live up to the implications of paragraph 28. I expect the Canadian government to take it seriously and not treat this in a rhetorical way. It is not rhetoric that is needed in the 1980s, it is not more studies and more analyses. It is some practical programs, and in my speech this afternoon I have given some specific suggestions with
2472

June 27, 1980
Brelton Woods Agreements Act respect to the improvement of the International Monetary Fund in a way that will relate to the intent of this bill for enlargement of our quota.
I believe that Canada must give a signal to its partners in the OECD. The signals which we are now giving in which we see that ODA will be reduced to 0.37 per cent in the CIDA estimates for the year 1981-82, falling below 0.43 per cent, where it now is, when the international target is 0.7 per cent, are going in the wrong direction. I appeal to those who formulate policy in this country and I ask members in the House to think seriously about ways in which Canada must, realistically and sensibly, respond to the international crisis about which every informed observer today is becoming greatly concerned. We are not in a hopeless condition; in my view, the glass is half full, not half empty. But we must take some steps of a concrete nature to reform the international financial institutions in ways which will benefit both the north and the south, because when we do that, we will improve the economic and social condition for humanity as a whole.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy today to follow my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), on Bill C-5 which has to do with an amendment to the Bretton Woods Agreements Act.
I would like to begin by saying that this morning I was here in the House when we as the House of Commons adopted "O Canada" as our national anthem. It was a very historic moment in the sense that after 100 years we finally said we had a national anthem. When we stood as a group here to sing our anthem I felt that the way in which we sang it reflected what we are in Canada. It was almost humorous in the sense that people were singing different words, not just in French and English, which is the way the hymn is written, but using different words to our own national anthem.
I think in a sense the fact that members of Parliament were not sure of the words to their own national anthem is symbolic of the way we face the whole question of international development and what is happening around us in the world in general, because our national anthem is a symbol, and it is very important, to be certain what that symbol is, to know what we are.
When we move into the world of international life and, in particular, international development, we are often confused for various reasons. It is somewhat like the situation this morning when we did not all know the new words to our national anthem; but at other times it might simply be because the problem is so immense that we have forgotten how to look at it and how to be part of it.
As the former speaker has said, 1 feel that today is the appropriate and symbolic time to look seriously at what we are doing with regard to the rest of the world. We have finally put our own House in order so far as our national anthem is concerned, and now let us seriously look at the whole world and how people would view the situation of a country where
not having a national anthem is a problem. They probably wish they had only the problem of not having a national anthem. Most people in the world could not even imagine a country which would have that as a problem.
Another point which I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that I believe it is symbolic that we are considering this question on a Friday afternoon. From the short experience I have had in the House of Commons, I would say that Friday afternoons are generally not considered to be prime time for discussing something of importance.


An hon. Member:: It is if you have a prime speaker.


An hon. Member:: Why not? Stanley is here.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Generally, many of the folks have already gone home because they do not think Friday afternoon is that important a time to be here.


An hon. Member:: Shame on all those members.


Robert Joseph Ogle: The fact that this bill has been scheduled for a Friday afternoon when all those members have gone home is significant. So far as I know, it has always been scheduled for a Friday afternoon. In spite of the fact that this bill, which is of such profound importance to people all over the world, has again been scheduled for a Friday afternoon is saying something other than what the bill is saying, because symbolically this bill is a big bill. Bill C-5, or the amendment to the Bretton Woods Agreements Act reads:
The Minister of Finance may provide for payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the International Monetary Fund in the manner and at the times provided for by the agreement therefor set out in the first schedule, of a sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole an amount equivalent to the subscription required from Canada, that is to say, two billion, thirty-five million, five hundred thousand Special Drawing Rights.
That is a lot of money when we realize that a special drawing right is now valued at about $1.20. The difference that this amendment makes, I have figured out from what was previously in the bill, amounts to $678,500,000. I think that is a lot of money to be talking about on a Friday afternoon.
What I am trying to say is that we should approach in a more serious way the question of poor people in the world. When I say serious, I do not mean only that we should play a greater role in the International Monetary Fund, but that we should look on the whole question of international development as an ultra important issue at this time in our life.
We are talking here about a bill that is an amendment to the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. 1 expect that most members in the House have a knowledge of what the Bretton Woods Agreements Act is, but as I was coming to the House today and I told someone that I would be speaking on the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, he asked me: "What is the Bretton Woods Agreements Act? Is it a housing development?" It could be; that is what it sounds like. Another person smartly asked: "Maybe it is the name of a new movie star?" Well, that was not said maliciously, but I think names like Bretton Woods cover up many sins and it is important for us to understand this and to go back in history.
June 27, 1980

I should like to tell the House where the name Bretton Woods came from. During the Second World War people were facing a crisis of a magnitude never faced before. Those who believed that they were the winners before the war actually finished realized after the war that there was a great deal of destruction in Europe, Japan and other countries which had been enemies, destruction so great there was no possibility for the economic life which had stirred the world prior to the war to be recovered. In a little place called Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, people representing Canada, the United States, Britain and so forth came together to see how they would run the economic game of the world after the war was over and there was no more fighting. They realized it was going to be necessary somehow to rebuild the world which had been destroyed during the war.
From that meeting in 1944 at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, two ideas evolved. One was that there would be a world bank of some sort, a place where funds would be available for this rebuilding. At the same time it was decided there should be an International Monetary Fund to safeguard the funds and ensure they maintained value in one way or another, by adjustment around the world, in order that trading arrangements which had been made prior, and would be made later, could continue.
As a result of that meeting, following the total destruction of Europe, Japan and many other countries during the Second World War the world began to revolve again in an economic way. The Germans, Japanese and so on not only regained a level of economic and social security in the world but actually went further ahead.
Let me present a little story to illustrate what happened. The whole thing that began at the Bretton Woods meeting was not unlike a poker game. 1 am not a poker player-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Joseph Ogle: -but I know there are some hon. members in this House who are and will be able to understand the situation better than myself. They will understand the idea I intend to propose.


Eugene Whelan: Is Stanley one? Are you a poker player, Stanley?


Robert Joseph Ogle: My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) does not know what poker is, so I will explain it for the benefit of other hon. members who do not know. In a poker game each player starts with chips which represent wealth. As you start to play the game the chips begin to move from one player to another, depending upon luck, skill and a lot of other things-cheating maybe at times. In any event, the chips begin to move. Those who enter the game with the most chips, not always but almost always have the best chance to win. Those who enter the game with the least number of chips, or next to none, have the greatest chance of
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
losing all, or at least of not being able to stay in the game very long.
After the Bretton Woods Agreements of 1944 there were certain players in the game who had a lot of chips. The United States had never been richer and it was able to put in a great quantity of chips. Canada put in an amount proportionate to its population. Other countries were able to put in only a very few.
I have heard there is a rule in poker that you never lend money to any player during the game because it is possible that individual could play you out of all your money in the end. In a sort of a way that same rule applied after the Bretton Woods arrangement. The countries which had to be loaned great quantities of money, Germany and Japan, did not lose the game but, as it turned out, became the winners. That was the result of many things. One of those aspects which had a great deal to do with this outcome was that those countries did not have to pay for armies any more and did not have to buy weapons, as they had been doing prior to that time.
As time went on and more players got into the game, or into the monetary fund arrangement-and there are now 138 players, I believe-many of them had very small stacks of chips. Those countries still have a very small stack of chips, and they do not have much chance to make any of the rules of the game. Because they are unable to do that their chances of winning are very small.
One of those countries is Turkey, a country which just recently ran out of chips. Jamaica also ran out of chips. Other countries have been in a bad position in relation to the International Monetary Fund in recent years, including Britain and France. Even Canada at one time not too long ago was looking at the idea of getting involved in the monetary fund, or taking a loan from the banker in the game, but the banker came in and decided we would have to play the game in a certain way.
One thing about the International Monetary Fund we have to remember is that when money goes into that fund the bankers, those in charge of the fund who work out of a big office in Washington, are responsible for how the money is to be used. The question I ask the government, and I support the idea as outlined by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton South, is: should we put more money into the bank as long as we can be assured that those funds will be used to help those who are in need? At this time I would like to come back to the very simple and basic question, and that is, what is the whole International Development Fund all about?
As far as I can see, the whole idea of international development basically means that every single human being on the face of the earth, no matter what age, sex, colour, religion, background, language, or whatever else distinguishes that individual as a human being, will be able to live in such a way that their individual dignity is maintained, just as the dignity of you and I and everybody in this House, Mr. Speaker, is maintained. The idea is that such a possibility will exist.

June 27, 1980
Bretlon Woods Agreements Act
It is interesting that we should constantly remind ourselves that the poor, wherever they are, are not poor because they want to be poor. If you happen to be born in Somalia, Cambodia or in one of the Central American countries, and you look like this and you speak like this, being a little different from us, you are not in financial and social straits because you want to be but because, with the breaks of the so-called game I have been talking about, your particular part of the world did not reach the level of development where the human element was constantly considered. I believe this is something we have to take very seriously to heart as we look at the whole question in this bill before us today regarding the international monetary fund and how it will effect the lives of the poor people.
I think it is important that we look at this bill in the context of why it is so difficult for this to be a popular idea; popular in the sense that we are willing to try to solve the world's difficulties with will, desire, hope and joy. Why is that? Perhaps it is because the problem has become so great that we are very happy as Canadians to recall our own serious problems. I believe it is more difficult in this country of ours today to approach this problem than it was five years ago. Certainly it is more difficult than it was ten years ago. Perhaps I am afraid, perhaps other members are afraid, but generally people are afraid to face what is going on outside. I can understand that because it is a fearful idea.
I should like to relate another little story concerning how I see the particular situation that is happening in Canada. As Canadians we are one of the most privileged people on the face of the earth. It is simply a fact. It is partly due to our history and a lot of things with which we did not have anything to do.


Eugene Whelan: Partly it is due to the Liberal government.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Very little of it is due to the Liberal government. However, our problems may be coming from that source. We live on one of the great parts of the world's surface. We have natural resources to no end in the ground, on top of the ground, and everywhere. There is still a small population related to our resources. People came to our country, brought great talents and all things necessary to put together a homogeneous group of people. Nevertheless, they cannot sing "O Canada" as a group very well.
We have a lot of privileges. I have never seen a single person die of starvation in this country. I have never seen a dead person as a result of starvation. There have been some, but I have never seen one. I have seen thousands of people dead from starvation in other parts of the world. They did not want to die like that. It was not their basic fault that they died like that. We have privileges, but somehow or other we have to relate to those people. As I said just a moment ago, I should like to relate just a little example.
The planet and all that is involved in its life is going at a speed which we have never experienced before. I will explain that in just a moment. Right now Canadians are something
like a family inside a stateroom on a sinking ship. The family is arguing about who is going to sleep where, who is going to get up first and who is going to get breakfast. They are wondering about all the important things which keep a family alive. But outside the ship has hit an iceberg. It is the Titanic and it is on the way down, unless something drastic is done quickly. The only way this family will become aware of what is taking place outside is by opening the door to the stateroom. When they open the stateroom door, the room will fill with icy water and it will hurt. As long as we sort of keep the door closed, it is like saying to ourselves, "Let us not worry about what is going on out there". The former speaker referred to the Brandt report which dealt with a similar scenario. This is not just a story to talk about. The report indicated that now we are faced with a situation which requires a program for survival. It referred to not only the poor people but to all people on the face of the globe.
The sooner wc can get our family affairs in order, the better. |HH 1 appreciate the fact that the constitution is ver>
important; I HHH have no difficulty with that. It is equally important for the HHH fa mils to decide how it will live and work as a family. I would HHH like to see this kind of thinking. I would like to see this kind of HHH action taken as quickly as possible so that we can be part of HHH the greater community. I believe our country has a great deal H&HI to offer it) the greater community. We have more to offer than HHH just the fact that wc will take a bigger part in the International Monetary Fund because of the bill being discussed at this time. In order to put this into perspective, at this time in our |HH Canadian history and of world history in general, drastic changes have taken place in the last ten or 20 years which have never taken place before. These changes demand some of the things recommended in the Brandt report.
I should like to relate another story. I realize that all the people in the world cannot get on one train, but let us imagine that all the people in the world are on a passenger train. The train is going down the track of history. Now, I know many people in this chamber have ridden on trains. Interestingly enough, a lot of young people today have never been on trains, but members of the chamber are old enough to have been on trains. When people travel on trains they are sitting, and the world is going past them as they pass by. As a rule they are comfortable, but if they go to the back of the train and look down what I would call history, they can see the tracks, ditches and telegraph lines. It is all there, it is perfect. It looks as if they are safe because they have come thus far. However, very few people see what is going on in front of the train. That is what I am trying to speak about today.
The front of the train is not like the back of the train. Up in front new components have been brought into the situation that were not there before. For instance, let us imagine that the train carrying the world population is coming to a bridge which has a series of pillars holding it up. None of us really understand the pillars completely, but they are very different from the tracks we have crossed. I never thought some of these pillars even existed 25 years ago, but now they have become

June 27, 1980

the key pillars in the whole matter of holding up the train and giving the passengers the possibility to live as human beings.
One pillar which 1 did not even think about 25 years ago was that some natural resources would run out. Natural resources are one of the pillars holding up the track as the train passes over. It is not as solid as it was 25 years ago. Twenty-five years ago I never heard a single person speaking about the fact that there would be an energy crisis because we would run out of petroleum in my lifetime. They talked about 400 years, 500 years, unlimited quantities. But the pillar we did not even think about years ago has now become a key pillar to keep the train on the tracks. If we look at that energy pillar, at this particular time it is one that is keeping the poor poorer because they cannot afford energy as they could ten or 20 years ago. It is a new piece of track which must be crossed.
I should like to refer to another idea which is another pillar. I do not think I even heard the word "pollution" when I was in high school, but now it is used by grade one students. Pollution is what we leave around as garbage and trash in the air, on the ground, and in the water, which make up our planet. That is what we leave around as human beings, particularly if we continue to develop in the manner we have. We leave garbage and trash around to the extent that we are destroying the planet. That particular pillar will be crucial if our train is to get across. Anyone who has listened to the questions in the House concerning acid rain, the death of lakes, and atomic waste dumps, realizes that is another pillar that is necessary for us to cross.
Another real factor in the whole situation is the pillar of population. If my statistics are correct, Mr. Speaker, half the people who have ever lived on the planet will be alive in my lifetime. The third pillar is population. For centuries the population of this planet was stable and low, but suddenly it has spiralled. That is a pillar that reflects part of our expectation for the future.
Brandt indicates some other things in his program for survival that are essential to the whole question. Naturally, when discussing survival, he deals with food. This is an easy subject to discuss when one is satisfied and not hungry. 1 doubt if anyone in this House or in the gallery today is really hungry, and I am sure no one is starving, so it is very difficult to put into perspective the tremendous importance of the food pillar and the production of food.
Another pillar we have to cross with our train carrying the human population of the world is the transfer of resources - how to sustain life over there. How is this going to work in this poker game? Until now we have not been able to find a way to fix that pillar.
In the context of the Bretton Woods Agreements and the International Monetary Fund, we must find a way to build the final pillar so that not only will it bear just the first two or three coaches that go over, but so that all the people of the world will be able to cross that bridge to the future.
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
Until now most people have been afraid to look ahead. There is now a greater awareness of the future, I believe. It may have a very real impact upon us in ways that we may not want but will not be able to stop because of the interrelationship that now exists between all the peoples of the world.
This little book, "North-South, A Program for Survival", is published as a result of the findings of an independent commission chaired by Willy Brandt. Why was it not given another title? What does that title mean? It is not north-west or north-east. It is north-south. It is as if north-south were an impossible direction, as if you cannot move that way. Of course it does not mean that is the direction we are going, but rather it presents the idea that two sides have to get together that do not normally do so.
Where do these words come from? We get into the habit of using words and terms that do not mean anything to others, so I do not think it would be out of line to explain how these terms originated and how I believe they were addressed at the Venice Summit last week in a way that I do not think they have been addressed before by the international community.
The first thing to consider is the direction-east-west. Following the Second World War the term east-west came to mean the west, referring to the capitalistic countries of western Europe, the Americas, Japan and Australia, and the east, referring to the communist bloc, Russia, China and other iron curtain countries. Following World War II the confrontation that came at various levels of detente became known as east-west.
In the 30 or 35 years since World War II another movement of people was taking place. This was not because of a political affiliation to the capitalistic or communist systems, but came about because of differences between those who had and those who had not. In general those who had were part of the northern part of the globe, not always, of course, but in general those who had lived in the northern part of the globe; and in general, those who had not lived in the southern part of the globe. In the last ten years or so countries in the poor areas of the world, those that have not developed an economy sufficient to sustain them, became known as the south, and those in the area of the world that has goods became known as the north.
The new terminology that Willy Brandt has used in his dialogue refers to the new tension that exists between those who have and those who have not.
At the Summit in Venice last week the part of the meeting which dealt with international aid, international exchange and so on, was unfortunately not reported in the Canadian media, as far as 1 could see.
Last night I was informed by the president of the Canadian International Development Agency that after the committees had prepared the document and handed the work over to the leaders in Venice, the leaders wanted to add another paragraph. I believe that paragraph relates to what I have spoken about here-east-west, north-south. Apparently it indicates that this question of development is no longer a question of the

June 27, 1980
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
rich west dealing with the underdeveloped countries. It indicates that planetary development will not happen now unless those countries that are also in the eastern bloc, and particularly those that belong to OPEC, are called to the table where international monetary questions are settled. We have to "disentangle" is the way I would put it, this confrontation, and make our priority a new kind of war on misery in the world community. That is not going to be easy, but it is a great step forward to bring the whole world community into that.
1 should like to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that if we can put our heads together and consider the future of humankind, perhaps we could see to it that the funds now going into military hardware, some S450 billion per year directed to the destruction of people and countries, could instead be directed into a war against misery in the world. If we could do that, then this symbolic thing we are doing today of approving this exchange in the International Monetary Fund would show that we are ready to make the decisions that will save this planet for future generations of humankind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on second reading of Bill C-5, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) raised a number of points concerning the problem of recycling the OPEC countries' surplus dollars to oil importing countries having balance of payment deficits on a current basis. The following notes suggest elements of answer to the hon. gentleman.
One of the greatest challenges facing the international financial system in the near term is ensuring that burgeoning surpluses in OPEC countries will be used to finance without undue stresses the deficits in oil importing countries, especially the underdeveloped countries that are hardest hit. The latter are faced with a major deterioration of their current accounts, by reason not only of increased prices for their crude oil imports, but also a recent decrease in economic growth in industrialized nations.
In respect of difficulties experienced by underdeveloped countries-UDC-in financing their external deficits, Canada among industrialized nations supported the principles established in April at the meeting of the IMF interim committee in Hamburg, and more recently at the OECD ministerial council. Private financial institutions no doubt will still be playing a key role in the recycling process. However, in view of sizeable commitments by many banks and the difficulties experienced by some UDC to borrow on the markets because of their debt problems, international financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank probably will have an increasing role to play.
These institutions will be in a position to make available to their member nations financial help that is both adequate and
capable of promoting the adjustments that already appear necessary and inescapable. The ability of international financial institutions to meet theses challenges will have to be frequently reviewed. The quota increase that is now at the ratification stage, in Canada for instance through Bill C-5, will make a significant contribution.
It is also in that spirit that the IMF interim committee authorized the fund's general director to initiate discussions with countries with surpluses on the terms and conditions under which the fund could borrow to increase its liquidity, were the need to arise. These efforts may prove to be not entirely adequate in the case of a limited number of countries that could face extremely acute problems. In those cases, the international community might have to create temporary and special assistance mechanisms.
The situation of the poorer countries is particularly alarming because several of them have few opportunities to implement the readjustment policies required to restore balance to their external accounts. It should be mentioned that each increase in crude oil prices by OPEC strikes a serious blow to the economic viability of those poorer countries. The continuation of development programs, even at a reduced pace, will depend mostly on the privileged assistance efforts of the international community. Canada's assistance program is based on those needs and we have already increased the funds allotted to that group of countries. However, their problems will be solved only if OPEC countries with a surplus agree to increase the amounts allotted for public assistance to development or avoid sudden and repeated increases in oil prices.
In general, the problems I just mentioned clearly show that industrialized countries and oil producing countries should start a dialogue as soon as possible to try to bring a larger measure of common sense and direction to the present situation, as stated recently by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) before his OECD colleagues.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take very much time of the House, but listening to the presentations made by some members, I would be remiss if I did not say a few words.
I have just attended the World Food Council meeting in Arusha, Tanzania. I listened to representatives of some countries who were there bragging that they would have balanced budgets in 1981. This happened in East Africa where we know millions will starve to death this year. I do not know how Canada or any other country could say that we must have a balanced budget knowing full well that our duty is to our fellow man. No matter in what part of the world people live, our duty to them must come first and foremost. I was astounded when I heard some people mentioning balanced budgets. I was also alarmed when I heard representatives of some of the developing countries criticize the World Bank for its attitude on providing money for them. I reported this to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on my return to Canada.
June 27, 1980

I am happy that the Prime Minister of Canada has taken part in discussions just recently in Venice with other world leaders, offering his participation in a Summit meeting in accordance with the Brandt report. This will involve approximately 25 countries, including OPEC and other industrialized and developed countries of the world. I think this is an urgent matter which cannot wait any longer. I am proud that our Prime Minister has taken a stand on behalf of Canada, and the sooner we get on with that, the better.
However, I want to say that I saw something of a project which Canada, our government and my department of Agriculture, are sponsoring in Tanzania. We are showing young Africans how to become self-sufficient in food. Sure, it costs us some money, but these are people who need the technology and scientific information. I realize that we have need for some of these things in our own country. But we will be funding outside of the city of Arusha, $6 million for an agricultural scientific laboratory. We are spending millions of dollars showing these young farmers how to produce wheat in their own country. They are being shown how to become self-sufficient. They are being taught how to work with their hands, rather than holding out their hands, asking someone to feed them. These young Africans were proud and happy to learn how to be productive.
Who was working with them? Farmers, husband and wife teams from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were living and working in the same environment with these young Africans. Some of these people originally signed two or three-year contracts. Some have now been there over five years, going on six. They say they must stay longer to ensure that these young people grasp the technology to be able to operate the huge diesel tractors, grain swathers and cultivators that are being used. Most of this equipment, although not all, comes from Canada. It is provided by Canadian taxpayers' dollars.
Many times we hear criticisms about some of the world projects to assist people, in which we are involved. It is wonderful to see these people become self-sufficient. Dignity is being provided to these young people. The President of Tanzania was very proud of the effort of this government working in close co-operation with his government, doing some of those things talked about earlier by members of this House.
More of this kind of action is necessary. There is urgent need to assist many millions of people in that and other parts of the world now. We cannot haggle and argue about such things as the economy, balanced budgets, and so on. I for one could not live with my conscience if I pitted the economy of one country against the death of another.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Two-Price Wheat Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, June 6, 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. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of being able to speak on this bill regarding the Two-Price Wheat Act. There are a number of points I want to make because, like everything else in politics, there are a number of myths that float around this statute, as with everything else that occurs here.
First, it is interesting to note that the only reason we are debating this bill is to protect the government retroactively from a lawsuit that it will face if the act is not passed. It is interesting that the Liberal Government of Canada let it ride for all these many years and now, in order to save its own skin, is retroactively passing a bill which will save several hundred millions of dollars. In effect it is another case of a government having its people bear the cost of a statute that it itself passed and took the benefit of, for several years.
There is another myth that often gets play in the media. I believe most consumers in the nation think that this statute is on the books in order to subsidize producers. Some ministers have indicated that it is not a producer subsidy. It is a consumer subsidy. The point has to be made that the government, as part of an over-all cheap food policy, has subsidized the consumers of bread in this nation to the extent of some $396 million.
It is true that originally there was a floor price for the producers of $3.25. It is true that that floor price was increased on a couple of occasions and now sits at $5. The point that needs to be made about that is that the floor price was always increased behind the actual world price for grain. It has been a sham. The government has been taking the benefit of an alleged increase in the floor price when, in fact, the world price has been much higher.
The maximum price paid by the millers of bread grain was to be $5. The result of that was that if the world price of grain were more than $3.25, the taxpayers of Canada, regardless of whether they ate bread, pasta, or whatever, would be paying a subsidy to those who ate bread. At that price the maximum subsidy by the taxpayers would be $1.75 a bushel.
When and if-and in fact it did-the world price of grain goes above $5 a bushel, the consumers of bread are still being subsidized, but no longer is that payment being made by the taxpayers of Canada generally. That payment is being made by the farmers of this country, and basically those are the

June 27, 1980
Two-Price Wheat Act
farmers of western Canada. There are some 150,000 active producers. How could we ever have put a bill through this House that would force 150,000 producers of bread wheat in Canada to subsidize the consumers of bread across the entire nation? It is absurd. I am amazed that the government would have put in such a provision in the first place.
The farmers are probably losing $1 million a week at this point as a result of the world price of bread grain being much above $5. They only receive the maximum $5. That point is not lost in the west.
This is another example of western raw resources being sold in the rest of Canada at much less than world prices. In a few minutes I will speak about oil being another example. Never in the entire history of this land have the farmers of the west paid less than full world price for combines, tractors and trucks. Never have they paid less than world prices for asbestos, or the electricity that goes into the manufacture of equipment, yet there seems to be this tendency to freeze the price of goods coming out of the west.
It is so inherently unfair that I must say, from the depths of my heart, that it is that feeling of unfairness that is going to take the west out of this country. In that vein, I must say that one of my own riding executive members has left my executive in order to join the western separatist party. Advertisements are in the western media calling for people to join. Over 200 memberships in the western separatist party have been sold in the Lethbridge-Foothills constituency. It is a very serious matter. I know those on the other side may laugh from time to time, but western separatism is in the same boat today that the PQ was in ten to 11 years ago. It hardly seems to be real Canadian justice.
The government proposed that under its new policy effective August 1, 1980, the minimum price will be $5 and the maximum price will be $7. It is no longer to be done by statute, but by regulation under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Why is there a delay until August 1 ? Why not immediately? During the election the government led the farmers to believe it would be done instantaneously.
Why August 1 ? We have some eight to ten weeks to go. It is costing the western farmers over $1 million a week, which will amount to $8 million to $10 million. The western farmers are faced with an enormous drought that is taking on truly catastrophic proportions in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The federal government's response is to give support to the extent of $5 million, which is but a drop in the budget. The amount that western farmers are losing on this subsidy alone will be $8 million to $10 million. So the government in giving $5 million is still not doing anything significant. Another hon. member pointed out to me a few moments ago that we spent, as a nation, between $4 million and $5 million on a one-day Canada Day celebration. Surely that cannot be any more important than the needs of more than 100,000 producers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan who are really hurting under this drought.
I should also like to know why this bill was brought in through the Senate. I know that the minister who is formally in charge of the Wheat Board comes from the Senate, but we do have a minister sitting in this House who purports to have responsibility, and it seems to me the bill should have been introduced in the House of Commons because it is the members of the House of Commons who are elected by their constituents and who must respond to their needs. Neither is it lost on me that the minister who is supposed to be responsible for the Wheat Board never even took the time to make the major speech when the bill was brought forward. It was the parliamentary secretary who did that.
Under the new policy, the floor price would be five dollars. That simply is not good enough. If there is to be a floor price at all, or a maximum price at all, it needs to be tied to the cost of production. The hard reality the western producer faces today is that the cost of production is rising enormously, and the most significant increase among the elements which make up his cost of production is interest on operating loans. We know that this high interest cost is simply the result of the federal Liberal government taking this nation from the point of balanced budgets to a national deficit of between $70 billion and $80 billion, and a yearly deficit of $14 billion.
We all know that the amount paid today in interest is greater than the entire federal budget of less than ten years ago. We know, too, that of every dollar paid in taxes, some 20 to 25 cents go to service debt without reducing the principal of that debt one bit. Meanwhile, the government is out borrowing more billions of dollars.
We recently passed a bill under a form of closure providing the government with a $12 billion borrowing authority. When the government is out in the market place competing with producers for money, with no limit on the amount of interest it can pay, as compared with a farming or business unit which has to tie interest payments to the ultimate price of its products, the ordinary farmer cannot compete. Of course the government gets the money, but it hurts the farmer. As a result, the farmer is paying much more by way of interest than he can really handle, and this should be factored into the flexibility for which we are asking should the floor price be indexed. It is not lost on the farmers of western Canada that the price of grain has to go up some 40 cents before the price of a loaf of bread goes up one penny.
There is a further point 1 should like to make. Surely the government could not have intended this to happen, but its policies on meat, on wheat, and on oil, have genuinely hurt the west for the benefit of central Canada. You know, Mr. Speaker, from your experience in the House, what happened to beef producers as a result of the LIFT program brought in by an all-knowing Liberal government believing it could advise farmers on what to produce, and paying them $10 to take their land out of grain production and put it into grass. The effect was to increase the beef herd enormously; we therefore had calves coming out of our ears and the price, naturally, fell. What did the government do? Nothing? No, that is not fair. It did do
June 27, 1980

something. It opened up the import market so that millions of tons of beef could come in from Australia and New Zealand further depressing prices. Hundreds and hundreds of beef producers went out of business. How can it be said that in these circumstances the government was responding to the needs of the west?
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the former minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski), completed a very complicated negotiation on the Prince Rupert grain terminal. This agreement called for negotiation with the grain producers, the grain producers co-operative organizations, with railway companies, terminal elevator companies and others. The unions were involved, as were arrangements for international shipping. All this was put to bed in an agreement. But when the government changed, within a matter of days the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) caused great uncertainty with regard to that agreement all because of a mere $12 million.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You should consult with your own colleague.


Blaine Allen Thacker: What is not lost in the west, perhaps because they are farmers and have time in the winter to read, is that on practically the same day as the minister was reneging on that agreement, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) was awarding a $4 billion contract the benefits of which were divided almost totally and equally between Ontario and Quebec. The implications are not lost on the people in the west where these things mean a great deal to us.


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 will invite you to the opening.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I could go into the history of oil, and perhaps I should because of the presence of the minister of energy in the House today. On energy alone, the west has paid a huge price since 1974.


Mr. Lalonde:: Not Manitoba.


Blaine Allen Thacker: It has done that by agreement, by being very generous as Albertans are in their capacity as Canadians.


Marc Lalonde: You are talking of Alberta.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Well, in terms of oil, if the minister of energy insists, 80 per cent of the benefit really does come from Alberta and something less from Saskatchewan. But look at the figures. For Alberta, at last count it was $17 billion-it would be much closer to $18 billion now-and the Saskatchewan figure was over $3 billion; it is probably $3.5 billion now. Never in the history of this nation has one region been called upon to subsidize the rest to such an extent. It was done by agreement, an agreement into which the west entered. But what does Alberta receive for this unprecedented contribution? It certainly has not received any appreciation. Every article 1 read contains criticism. Whenever the minister of energy makes a speech, does he ever say to the people of Alberta; "You have been generous and we appreciate your contribution, and we are going to ask you for more?"


Marc Lalonde: Yes. Read the speeches.
Two-Price Wheat Act


Blaine Allen Thacker: I have never seen it in a speech. It has always been talk about greed and selfishness.


Marc Lalonde: I rise on a point of order-perhaps I should raise the matter as a question of privilege. I am sure the hon. member would not wish to mislead the people of this country by making a completely false and erroneous statement-not the first he has made in his speech up to now. But I refer him to my repeated speeches; they are on record; he has copies in his office. In speech after speech I have stated that Alberta has made a tremendous contribution to this country and that we should be thankful for the contribution made by the people of Alberta and by the oil industry to the development of this country. I also pointed out, however, that Canadian taxpayers generally and the Government of Canada-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker).


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) should stand in this House and tell the people of Alberta how generous they have been, because that is not the message that is getting through to the people of Alberta, and even in this-


An hon. Member:: You are distorting it.


Marc Lalonde: You are misleading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Perhaps the problem lies with what the minister goes on to say in those speeches, because in those speeches he always goes on to tie in the fact that section 109 of the constitution is not going to be honoured in this respect, and to leave the impression that the people of Alberta are somehow being unreasonable in wanting to tie their price to 85 per cent of the Chicago price.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister is rising on a question of privilege, I hope it is more valid than the last one.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again is committing a serious breach, I submit, of the rules of this House by accusing another member of breaching the constitution. I have stated that this government was going to respect every aspect of the BN A Act-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the hon. minister, it appears to be a point of debate and hardly a matter of parliamentary privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that this is a sensitive point for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources because his appointment as minister has caused great distress throughout the west.

June 27, 1980
Two-Price Wheat Act
This brings me to another point, however. This country operates under an accepted order of law, and that order of law is the British North America Act, our constitution. Our constitution provides that resources belong to the provinces. Ontario confirmed that point approximately 50 years ago by taking that section to the Supreme Court of Canada.
We in the west have always paid the world price for Ontario's resources because that is what the constitution says. That is what the Supreme Court of Canada says. Now with respect to oil they seem to be backing down. I say to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that he has a constitutional duty to uphold the constitution. He should be defending Alberta and its ownership of that resource, and not attacking it.
Both Germany and Japan went immediately to world prices and, of course, they have the strongest world economies. We could do the same.
In terms of history, hon. members will recall that in 1905 when Alberta was created it was given all the powers of a province except control of its natural resources. The reason seemed to be a central Liberal government thinking that colonialists could not truly run their own affairs, an attitude which this Liberal government still reflects.
Alberta was governed by a Liberal provincial government from 1905 to 1921, and throughout that period it pressed the central Liberal government for control of resources. The central government refused. In 1921 the United Farmers of Alberta were elected as the provincial government, and they continued to press for return of the resources. The result was that in 1930 we achieved a transfer agreement, and we took control of resources. However, interestingly enough, the issue was so difficult and so heated that at the 1924 annual convention of the UFA party a resolution providing that Alberta separate from the union was debated. This shows the depth of feeling, and I must say in all good faith that Albertans have that same capacity and that same depth of feeling about their energy resources today.
We then entered into the thirties and the horrible depression. It took a decade or more out of the lives of people like my parents and the generation just before mine. The people of western Canada did not have the support of the central government, and they made necessary and hard adjustments to their lives. They abandoned their homesteads. Three out of every four had to leave their homesteads. They lost their homes and their dreams. As a result, in 1935 the Social Credit Party came to power. They were a government which tried solutions. They were again, however, frustrated by the central government. There were some ten statutes or amendments which were struck down by the federal power of disallowance or by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The point is that it was a government which was trying to address the problems of people who were suffering and starving on their lands and having to abandon their farms. The BNA Act in that case was used against the people of Alberta when they were trying to get their electricity and their manufactured goods from central Canada at less than world price.


An hon. Member:: Talk about the bill.


Marc Lalonde: The bill is about wheat.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources really seems upset today, and that is very interesting. He is usually pretty cool, but I think we have hit a soft spot with him.


Marc Lalonde: What about the bill?


Blaine Allen Thacker: What I am explaining with regard to this Two-Price Wheat Act is how it ties in with a broad spectrum of actions by the central government which is leading to a tremendous potential for separation in western Canada. It is important that these points be made.
It is not that the west has not tried. In 1937 William Aberhart as premier of Alberta presented "The Case for Alberta". That brief covered our concerns about freight rates, tariff rates, transportation and marketing of western products. There was no meaningful response.
This bill could have been discussed in 1937. We have been saying exactly the same things. There has been no change since.
During the forties when we were trying to develop the oil industry, central Canada had an opportunity to invest. It refused. Hon. members should listen to Senator Manning. He gives a very emotional speech about his personal efforts to raise money in central Canada to develop the oil industry, but none was available. It was all kept for central Canada. That is the only reason that the oil industry is so heavily owned now by Americans, Dutch, and British. It is ironic that central Canadians would not put their money into their own country and that people from the United Kingdom, the United States and Holland did. Now that they own the business, central Canada is crying in its beer.
Time again passed. In 1969, 22 years after Aberhart had presented "The Case for Alberta", another premier, Premier Strom, came here and dealt again with exactly the same things: freight rates, tariff inequities, transportation problems and marketing problems. The result was exactly the same- nothing.
Then we come to 1973. At the Western Economic Opportunity Conference in Calgary the same issues again were discussed. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came with solemn promises of a meaningful response. The results were simply platitudes, and at the end of that conference the premier of Alberta, Premier Lougheed, was moved to say, and I quote:
Obviously we failed to get through to you the spirit and potential of western Canada. We would have traded all the specific policies you announced here just for that understanding alone.
That is what I am saying today on the Two-Price Wheat Act. It is again a reflection of the majority being elected from central Canada and, even giving them the very best of good faith, they did not genuinely understand what we in the west were and are saying.

June 27, 1980

I could go on and talk more about what has happened with respect to OPEC prices, but getting back to this bill 1 hope the minister will read this speech. I hope he will address his mind to the points raised, because I think if he were to address his mind to the indexation of the $5 floor price and if he were to address his mind to making it retroactive from even June 1 rather than August 1, that would go a long way toward being a sign of good faith by this big institution in Ottawa toward the small producers of western Canada.
I believe I can call it four o'clock.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 4 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, public bills and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, you will remember that last Friday I informed the House that it would be my intention at four o'clock today to seek unanimous consent to proceed with all stages of a number of private bills to effect name changes in constituencies. This will be done very quickly and should not impinge too much on the time of the hon. member for Wetas-kiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) with his motion, and I ask leave of the House to proceed in that manner with all those bills, including the bill which was introduced today, by leave, in the name of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger).


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions, and we are prepared to consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. We too are party to the agreement. I hope it will be possible to give second reading to several bills on one motion to save a little more time that way as well.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
David Michael Collenette: that Bills C-268, C-402, C-488, C-529, C-565, C-599, C-600, C-601, C-602, C-604, C-605, C-606, C-608, and C-609, to change the names of electoral districts, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bills read the second time, considered in Committee of the Whole, reported, read the third time and passed.
Grain Prices

[Stage Direction]
(English J

Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of setting floor prices related to costs of production for cereal and oilseed crops one month before planting in order that farmers may be provided adequate returns to ensure sufficient production to meet Canada's domestic and export needs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, with the spirit of co-operation in the House today, I was almost willing to forgo my speech in anticipation of acceptance of this motion; we have been doing so well today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Also I am most pleased that the motion has caused both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to be present today. I am very pleased, because I know it is an important motion in which both of these ministers are very interested. As I speak briefly and take them through the statistical and logical reasons why the setting of an initial price should have some base rather than the Wheat Board pool account, I hope they will agree this is a reasonable motion and something the Standing Committee on Agriculture should study very thoroughly.
At the present time each year the minister responsible for the Wheat Board sets an initial price. That initial price is the price which farmers receive for deliveries to the elevator. I am sure that price is based upon last year's pooling account and not upon any other reason, particularly the most important one, which is the cost of production a farmer must face in order to produce wheat.
Let us have a look at the statistics. 1 hope the House will bear with me because often statistics are not the most pleasurable in speeches, but they are very important to this motion. Farm input costs have grown much faster than the consumer price index. In 1979 the farm input price index was 12.5 per cent and the consumer price index was 9 per cent. If we look back at the 1960s, both of these indexes were very similar. They both rose at rates of about 3 per cent per year. But that changed very rapidly in the 1970s.
If we look at 1979 over 1978, fertilizer costs have gone up 18 per cent, machinery costs up 14 per cent, labour up 7.3 per cent, and since 1971 petroleum has gone up 100 per cent. What has really happened? From 1971 to 1979 the consumer price index rose 90 per cent, but the farm price index has risen 1 30 per cent. This is a tremendous difference.
If we look again at the statistics I quoted in relation to 1979 over 1978, between 1971 and 1979 fertilizer prices have risen

June 27, 1980
Grain Prices
150 per cent, machinery 195 per cent, farm labour 140 per cent, pesticides 176 per cent, and diesel fuel 130 per cent. All those were much greater than the consumer price index of 90 per cent on which we based most of our calculations for other things in the consumer economy.
1 did some calculations. As we look at the basis for increases in labour contracts, pensions, and family allowances, we realize they are all based upon the consumer price index. That generally ties the dollar value to the 1961 or 1971 level. In our calculations we used 1961 as a base year and indexed that at 100. Then we deflated the actual prices for barley, wheat, hogs and cattle back to the year 1930, and inflated forward to the year 1980. We used the base of 100 for the costs. If we deflate it and go backwards, we find in 1930 a bushel of barley, which was worth 80 cents in 1961, based on 100 would have been worth $1.42 at that time, even though the actual price was only 59 cents. If we carry that ahead to 1980, we find for the same bushel of barley the Wheat Board is now paying $1.71 at the farm gate, or $2.57 at Thunder Bay and that the actual value based on 1961 is only 63 cents. We can make the same calculation with respect to wheat, hogs and beef cattle.
In 1979 the actual price for wheat at Thunder Bay was $6.09, but based upon a 1961 index of 100 the actual price would be only $1.48; for hogs the actual price in 1979 was $64.25, but based upon the 1961 index it would be $21.45; for beef cattle the actual price was $78.38, but on that basis it would be $28.82.
So what does this show us? It shows us that the only way farmers have been able to exist over the past number of years-because the actual price of grain has not risen to any extent, one year it is up, the next year it is lower than 1960 prices-is through enlarging their farming operations and increasing the volume of production and the use of new technology. So, as we do with everything else such as indexing contracts for labour unions, indexing family allowances and indexing our pensions, we do nothing when we establish the initial price for wheat, barley and rapeseed for farmers so far as indexing that price is concerned, or basing it on the cost of production.
As we look at the statistics, we find that the number of farms each year decreases by 4 per cent, and the large decrease in numbers had been in effect before that period of time, and the average age of farmers is increasing rapidly. The Minister of Agriculture has brought in many programs which he hopes will keep young farmers on the farms or which will entice them to become involved in farming. But it is literally impossible for that to happen as land prices continue to go up, as input costs continue to rise and the level of price that the farmer receives remains the same year after year. So more and more farmers have increasingly large debt loads and their average age is increasing.
Why should we accept a motion such as this under which we base the initial price on the cost of production? First, it would provide a reasonable price for the labour of farmers, because
there would be some reasonable base on which we would establish grain prices. Second, it would mean a stronger agricultural economy. Look at what has happened with the drought situation in Manitoba. That province expects to lose $500 million this year. So by establishing a reasonable price based on the cost of production, we would have a stronger agricultural economy.
Farmers would then be able to look at the floor price and ask, "Can I produce grain on my land at that price?" If they could do so for wheat, they would produce it, if they could not for barley, they would not produce barley. That is an advantage for the Canadian Wheat Board because the Canadian Wheat Board should have knowledge of which grain they can sell in 1981, for example. Therefore, in establishing a floor price, let us use this crop year as an example.
We have oversold barley in export markets, and there are two reasons for that. The first is that farmers are not delivering because the initial price is too low, and the other is that there was a feeling in western Canada that they should grow more oilseeds because its initial price was substantially higher and the cash in hand was generally more than for growing barley and wheat. If the Wheat Board knew they would have large sales for feed grains in the international market, they could raise the support or the floor price a little higher than they would, say, for oilseeds. That would then be an incentive for farmers to plant a certain percentage more of their lands to that crop rather than another crop.
This method is used by other countries in the world, and the one closest to us is the United States. They have a program that has been in place for many years, and it is under their food and agricultural act. They call it the target price system. On August 15 of the previous year they announced the support or the floor prices for agricultural commodities in the United States. They used to base the target price on a system they called parity, which was the same as many of our stabilization programs where an average for five years is taken to establish the price. But they have changed that now. They base their floor price now on the cost of production, and that is of tremendous advantage to the U.S. farmers. Also as 1 have suggested the Wheat Board should do here in Canada, they encourage farmers to produce certain crops or discourage them from producing other crops. We could use that as an example here for our Canadian Wheat Board.
What is the target price in the United States for barley and wheat? For barley it is $2.55 a bushel. Our producers are getting $1.71 a bushel today, and if we look at the actual cost of production in Canada it is over $2.55 a bushel. So farmers are really producing at about 90 cents a bushel below the cost of production. Most farmers do not consider the price of their labour and the price of their land, because in many instances they own the land, and often they do not consider the great advantage of advanced technology. So they are hanging on at this price of $1.71 a bushel. The price for wheat is $3.63 per bushel, while in Canada we are paying to the farmer, depending on the grade, between $3.50 and $4 a bushel.
June 27, 1980

Here is a specific example of a country which has used a system for a long time and based the price they pay to farmers on the cost of production, given him that price before he starts to plant the crop so that he can make the proper decision, not only for himself but also to meet the international demand for a commodity which we have the wonderful ability to produce in excess of our domestic demands.
The use of this basis for the cost production is not new in Canadian programs. We have it in our stabilization act which was amended a few years ago. It was established in our Western Grain Stabilization Act. When Alberta brought in its stop loss program a few months ago for hogs, it established this basis in the program. When producers and the government of Alberta went over to Japan to sell hogs because there was a surplus, the Japanese government was convinced to buy hogs based on the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. So even though at that time the price of hogs in Alberta was greater than the one in the contract with Japan, many farmers grabbed the contract because they knew that in the long run they would be better off, and they signed contracts on that basis.
This is not a new proposal. It is one that has been tried in other countries, one that we have put in our programs here in Canada and one that we could easily adopt by basing the initial price which the Wheat Board announces not on some figures that are pulled out of the hat based on a pool account, but rather based on the cost of production which statisticians are now gathering for us under the Western Grain Stabilization Act.
I will conclude my remarks on this motion by saying that it is important to western farmers that we do not continue to allow them to produce almost every commodity that they produce at less than the cost of production. They cannot continue to do that for much longer. They must get adequate prices, otherwise we will have continued consolidation and upward mobility by large corporations buying land and processing goods so that they can make profits here and there through the system. So I commend this motion to the House of Commons and I hope hon. members will see fit to send it to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of the resolution before the House, and to commend the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) for introducing this idea for consideration. I want to mention five or six different points which I think members should take note of and perhaps reflect upon.
The first is the point he ended off with regarding farmers and their cost of production, pointing out that so many of their commodities are sold at less than the cost of production. He talked about the price of barley and what has happened to that in the last 40 or so years, as I recall.
The point I want to start off with is the whole idea of planning. I think all of us like to plan our lives as much as we can, and in politics that is often very difficult. Whether it is in
Grain Prices
business or working in a plant, no matter what, people need and want to plan their lives in terms of their families, the houses they want to build, the cars they want to buy, and all this is based on the incomes they receive from their jobs-their remuneration. This is one thing that many farmers cannot do. Many farmers do not know in the spring what they are going to receive in the fall for the grain they have planted. The resolution before the House today is one that tries to rectify that situation so farmers can do a bit of planning.
I remember my 18 years on a farm as a child, growing up. In the spring we had no idea what we could do in the fall, what we could purchase or how much money there would be available, because all this depended on the weather and international prices for various commodities. This depended on factors that were totally beyond the control of the individual farmer.
That is a situation people in other occupations will not tolerate. I think the time for farmers tolerating that situation has ended as well. I want to suggest one thing to the hon. member who moved this resolution today, and that is that we have floor prices. I think what should go hand in hand with that, unless we run the risk of tremendous over-supply of products, is a system of orderly marketing, with marketing boards and marketing agencies. The hon. member smiles, but I know he supports the concept of orderly marketing for some commodities, but perhaps not for others.
In this country we have five national marketing boards for products; I think of industrial milk, turkeys, broilers, and I think of CEMA. I said there were perhaps five, but maybe there are only four. There are literally dozens of marketing boards for commodities which come under provincial regulations. I think we have to combine a marketing agency with planned and orderly marketing, along with minimum prices, because if you have floor prices based on the cost of production, with a depression of prices elsewhere in the world you can easily understand that there might be an over-supply of certain commodities in this country. We have to combine this with as many import controls as possible through GATT to protect our Canadian producers. For proper import production we again need national marketing on a national level. I want to suggest that we should have a combination of minimum prices and orderly marketing.
One need only think of beef, for example, to know that if we raise the price of beef in this country through subsidies and guarantees, which I think we need, we may end up with an over-supply, unless we have some kind of marketing agency so we can plan production to meet consumption in this country. I can say as a person who comes from a riding where there are literally hundreds of cow-calf producers, I am informed that the overwhelming majority want a marketing agency or board for their product.
The second thing I wanted to mention was the need in our country now for the promotion of international price agreements, or international commodity agreements. I think that is what we should be striving for around the world today.
One of the problems we have in respect of wheat today is the result of the old international wheat agreement falling apart a

June 27, 1980
Grain Prices
number of years ago. We should have an international agreement under which consuming and producing countries sit down together to hammer out an agreement that is fair to both the producer and the consumer.
We do not have an agreement in respect of oil. What we have is a cartel. The OPEC nations have formed a cartel. The producers get together and fix a price. I am not talking about a cartel, I am talking about commodity agreements, as a result of the producers and consumers sitting down negotiating a price that is fair to all, based on the cost of production.


Eugene Whelan: You are reading one of Whelan's old speeches.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The minister suggests I am reading one of his old speeches.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are lots of them around.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I hope 1 am not that boring to the House.


Eugene Whelan: You are doing right well.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I remember going to Africa four years ago to a United Nations conference on trade and development, the whole purpose of which was to try to hammer out international commodity agreements, whether they be in respect of bananas, tin, cotton, food products or what have you. If we had international commodity agreements we might lose a bit on some commodities, yet on some we would gain a bit, but this would be fair to all; it would be fair to the entire world. I know the member for Wetaskiwin agrees with me in that regard.
I put a question today to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) about the price of sugar which has gone up by 200 per cent to 300 per cent in a few months. That price has not gone up as a result of a drastic shortage of sugar, but because of problems of supply, supply being curtailed a bit, yet not to the point there was a shortage. As a result speculators moved in. This is a commodity on the open market with no planning, no agreement, nothing at all. Speculators moved in to the futures market and drove the price of sugar sky high. It is the ordinary consumer who suffers, and I maintain the same thing is true with other commodities as well.
In the absence of international commodity agreements we should be looking at two-price systems for a number of commodities, so at least the domestic Canadian price would be based on a cost of production formula. A few minutes ago we were discussing two-price wheat. One of the things I wanted to say then was that I think the Canadian price for wheat we consume in the bread we eat, which represents a tiny minority of the wheat we produce, should be based on the cost of production. In this way the farmer would get back what he puts into the production, plus a decent salary for his family to survive on.
The third point 1 want to mention is one that has been referred to by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, the whole matter of input costs. I do not have to repeat much of what he has said because he has given us figures showing that the farm
price index has gone up much more rapidly than the consumer price index. The amount a farmer is paying for farm machinery, for fuel, for fertilizers and for everything to produce a bushel of wheat, has really skyrocketed, while the price of the bushel of wheat or, for that matter, the price of a hog, livestock or other commodity, in many cases, has not really gone up at all, or very little in the last few years. As a result we in this country, the consumers, have received the benefit recently of fairly cheap food. I know that is a difficult thing to say because food prices went up 12 per cent this year, but we must keep this in perspective.
Food prices in other parts of the world are much higher than in Canada, with the exception of the United States. We and the people in the United States are very fortunate that we have, in comparison to our incomes, the lowest food prices in the world. All one has to do is go to Europe, Japan, or any country in the Third World, comparing the incomes with what the people are paying for food, to find that the proportion spent on food is much greater than is the case in Canada and the United States.
I am not saying we should experience a tremendous increase in the price of food. All I am saying is that if, by giving the farmer a fair deal, making sure he gets back his cost of production, this means a minor increase in the price of food, then that is a worth-while investment for each and every one of us.
The fourth point 1 want to make is that where the increase in the price of food is causing hardships, and where it is causing malnutrition-malnutrition does exist among Canadians in some parts of this country today, and I can give you many statistics about calcium deficiency, protein deficiency and deficiencies in many other basic vitamins and minerals- we as a public have an obligation to bring in a nutrition program under which we susidize some basic foods such as milk and bread.
I want to remind the House again that recently we had subsidies on milk and bread, but the Minister of Agriculture and other ministers decided in their wisdom to remove those subsidies. I do not think that was very wise. Perhaps the minister will tell us today why he has removed the subsidies on basic foods like bread and milk. I should like to hear him quote from some of his speeches on this topic because I do not think he is very proud of what the government has done. We could have a school milk program which would take care of some of the basic nutritional needs of the children of this country.
When we speak of a cost of production formula and a basic floor price, Mr. Speaker, we are only stating something that is a fact for many other people in our society. Many pension plans are now indexed to the cost of living-our salaries as parliamentarians are indexed to the cost of living, and most trade unions have a COLA clause in their contracts to increase salaries according to the cost of living. I think the same thing should be done for farmers. Their income ought to be increased according to their cost of living, which is the cost of
June 27, 1980

production. That is a basic philosophy of equity with which I think everyone in this House could agree.
If it should create hardships in some areas, then as a collective society we should be willing to spend as much as $200 or $300 million perhaps to subsidize two or three basic foods in order to provide Canadians with proper nutrition. That would be a tremendous investment. One can cite study after study to endorse the proposition that good food means good health. The Food Prices Review Board pointed out that the need for 40 per cent of our hospital beds could be tied in to improper diet and improper nutrition. It would be a worthwhile investment to spend a few hundred million dollars to educate people on the importance of proper nutrition and to subsidize production of some of the basic foods.
It might be a good idea to impose a higher tax on some junk foods as a means of persuading people not to drink Coca Cola or some of the heavily salted chips or heavily sugared cereals. These are abundant in the marketplace and widely advertised in magazines, and their appeal is directed mainly to children. This makes me, as the parent of a six-year old, very angry. When children go to a store they want to pick up a breakfast cereal which is almost 60 per cent sugar.
I think it would be an excellent idea to tax these junk foods very heavily. I am in favour of heavy taxes on tobacco and alcohol. A tax on junk food could provide a hefty subsidy for milk, bread, and one or two other basic foods. It is the pocketbook that motivates most people, and in this way they could be motivated to purchase the basic foods instead of cokes, salted chips, and sugared breakfast cereals.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Like my arrowroot biscuits!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, like my friend's arrowroot biscuits.
These are a few ideas that I think the House should consider, Mr. Speaker, that would help farmers and consumers and protect the health of Canadians. The consumer and the farmer are not enemies; they are not contradictions. I think we can help both and at the same time build a nation that is physically healthy and more productive. People would pay more taxes. The cost of unemployment insurance benefits, welfare and medicare would be less, so they would make a better contribution to society.
If we were to ensure sufficient income for our farmers it would be one way to entice young people back to the land. This would in turn ensure a viable rural community with towns and villages to serve it. I think all of that can be done through proper planning.
In ridings such as my own or that of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, farmhouse after farmhouse stands abandoned. There are many cases like those he told me about, where a farmer may have two or three or four quarters of land and old equipment that needs replacing. But with such a small holding there is no way he can earn enough to buy new equipment. What usually happens is that he sells out to a bigger farmer who can afford to purchase larger equipment. Eventually he too sells out to an even larger farmer. The time comes, then,
Grain Prices
when there are only a few farmers in the neighbourhood and they are not enough to support a farm machinery dealer, a general store or co-op, so they start consolidationg. The result is fewer communities, fewer services, fewer people, and we find that control rests with those few people.
What is the logical consequence of all this? Perhaps our rural communities will become like those in Colorado where a few large farms take in townships, or perhaps a few large corporations will eventually control farming as they do the farm machinery business, the auto business, the oil business and many others. That is neither healthy nor desirable in terms of giving people meaningful jobs and a decent life in a rural society.
Those are the things that I want to say, Mr. Speaker. I hope hon. members will think about some of them and that we can make substantial changes to our society and our lifestyle and reflect on where we are going. These alternatives would not cost the government any more money or build up larger deficits. They would be a real investment in a better and more decent way of life for all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak on this motion which deals with setting a floor price for cereal and other oil seed crops. This floor price will be based on the cost of production. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) indicated that his objective is to ensure that Canada has enough of these crops to meet its domestic needs first of all, and secondly, enough to meet our export obligations.
I do not think any member of the House would disagree with these objectives. We want to have sufficient production and we want to ensure that our western farmers remain viable and healthy. We listened with interest when he outlined a number of problems. One which he outlined very dramatically, and which the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) also referred to, is the difficulty of the cost-price squeeze which affects all farmers in Canada. So there is no question about the objectives and no question about what he wanted to achieve for farmers in Canada.
I should like to ask why this should be limited to wheat farmers and oil seed farmers, however. Why should it not be extended to everyone in the farming community? The principle is established.
As practical politicians we have to use the means at our disposal to deal with this very difficult and important topic. We might consider the status of the grain industry in Canada at the present time, for instance. Grain ranks third in production amongst our industries today. We stand second to the United States in terms of international grain trade and, of course, the United States has more arable land than we do. That does not mean that in the decades ahead we should not make every effort to create more arable land in Canada. A multitude of problems face the world in terms of agriculture. And, as one of the most fertile countries in the world, we have a responsibility not only to help people at home but also in

June 27, 1980
Grain Prices
other countries that have demonstrated they cannot produce enough foodstuffs to feed themselves.
This brings me to another point, Mr. Speaker. 1 think a major part of our foreign aid program should be aimed at helping Third World countries become self-sufficient in food production.
In many of our foreign aid projects we have in the past concentrated through CIDA on the giant dams and mega projects of an industrial nature. We are supporting now the United Nations Industrial Development Organization as one of our multilateral agencies which is aimed at industrializing the Third World. But is this really our first priority? Should this be the first priority when two-thirds of the people in this world do not get adequate food ?
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melviile has bemoaned the fact that children eat candy and drink coke here in Canada. I agree this is a problem. But there is a far greater problem which faces us as citizens in this world, and that is the number of people who are starving. So the great thrust of our program, along with the spirit which the hon. member has proposed in his bill is that of helping other nations with their food needs. Certainly exporting food is a good idea. But let us remember the adage of foreign aid: if you give a person a fish he will eat for a day. If you teach him how to fish, he will eat for a lifetime. That should be one of our fundamental premises when we come to deal with this aspect of helping to increase our exports.
What has happened in this motion I perceive is that we are setting a floor price. What will happen to the supply of these products when we set a floor price but do not set any type of marketing agency over the supply which will regulate it? Are we going to get into the quota problem? Do we want more and more government regulations, as the hon. member for York-ton-Melville has indicated? Is that the intent of the hon. member who has proposed this bill? Are we going to need more and more instrumentality to deal with this type of problem? I am not sure exactly what he has in mind in that area.
We heard a suggestion today from a member opposite in which he praised a two-price system for wheat. In a debate on a previous bill this afternoon we heard another member opposite condemning the two-price system for wheat. We heard a strong condemnation of the two-price system for oil. We have heard a lot of talk about the areas which deal with whether Canadians will act for their own benefit in a mutually co-operative way. These are questions which are fundamental to our existence as a nation, to our existence as a country, Madam Speaker.
I do not want to prejudge the answer, but I believe we will all have to take a look at the community of interest we have as Canadians working together. Rather than concentrating on petty differences, we will have to take a spirit of open mindedness. Rather than focusing on the problems, why do we not look at the tremendous potential that we have as a nation, a
nation blessed with the richest resources and with the most highly educated people, with evidence of human rights and freedoms,, and with good neighbours in most sections of the world? Why do we not take these great strengths, this potential that we have, and look on the bright side of things, rather than focusing on the petty and narrow differences which are separating us? That is why I disapprove.
In conclusion, let me add the philosophy of this motion. Perhaps setting a minimum price is one way to help the farmers. My parents are farmers. They had to flee Saskatchewan when the droughts of the depression wiped them out. My parents are now farmers here in Ontario. I am looking forward to the recess this weekend so that I can go to our farm and help get in our first crop of hay. We are fortunate that it is not a bad crop this year in Ontario. I wish the crops were as good every place in Canada.
In setting a floor price perhaps this motion does not take into consideration that pioneering philosophy, that free enterprise philosophy of a lot of our farmers. Our farmers are some of the most enterprising, hard working people that we have ever seen. These are the people, the farmers, who get up at any time of the night when a calf is being born. They anticipate it, they go out and work with the cow to make sure that the calf is born and is healthy. These are the people who are in the fields just as soon as the weather permits in the spring. These people invest in tiles and their drains so they can get into the fields sooner and get their crops off sooner. These are the people who are investing great amounts in the mechanics of farming, in the new technologies in order that they can be more productive farmers.
Sure, we can bemoan the fact that there are fewer and fewer farmers in the west today and that the average size of the farm in the west is now 800 acres. Maybe this does cause disruptions in the life of people in the west. Yes, people are fleeing from the farms. But this is one of the unfortunate realities that efficiency and modernization have brought upon us. With mechanization we have been able to produce more and more. I do not think any of us bemoan the fact that a farmer can produce a lot more now because he has a tractor than during the time when he had a horse and before that when he had to use very simple hand implements in order to till his land.
Yes, there is a disruption of life to the farmer and there is a consolidation of land. But do any of us bemoan the new technologies that have made the individual farmer more productive? It is this productivity, it is utilizing these modern techniques, it is being a free enterpriser and taking risks, and these are the things that farmers have always been prepared to do. They are some of the strongest people in society in terms of the free enterprise spirit. This does not mean that we want to ignore the aspect of the government co-operating with our farmers. But before we start to guarantee everything, before we look at a guaranteed minimum price based on cost for wheat and for oil seeds, before we start to extend that to hog producers, to dairy farmers, to cattle farmers, to all producers of agricultural products here in Canada, I think we have to look at the implications of this from a financial point of view
June 27, 1980

and from the basic philosophical point of view of what our agricultural people mean to us here in Canada.
For that reason 1 think that we should consider very seriously the spirit in which this motion has been presented to this House. We want to help our farmers. We want to do something to make sure that the drought we are experiencing in the west will not unduly impact on our agricultural producers. That is the way to do it. It is not to set in motion a bureaucracy whereby prices are always guaranteed unrelated to international realities.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has talked about the need for international commodity prices. I wish it were as simple as saying to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), "Go and negotiate for us an international price that will be sustained." We have seen what has happened. For example, look at the international cocoa prices, the international oil prices, the international commodity prices on all the foodstuffs, and the coffee prices. For a time these agencies may have served, but they break down and become victims of their own bigness. They become cartels unto themselves which in many cases preclude other people from getting into the business.
In considering the aspects of this motion before us, let us consider the changes that have been made in Canada in agriculture over the past few years. I am speaking about the new technologies that have been brought about, the use of fertilizers, herbicides, new types of plants and new types of wheat. I am proud to say that the most rust resistant and hardiest brand of wheat was developed here in Canada by a Canadian. This is something of which we can be very proud.
Second is this trend toward consolidation. Consolidation may be harmful in some respects. It may require dramatic changes. It may drive people off the farms, but it is also efficient. There are two sides of the coin.
Third, let us look at what we have been doing for the wheat farmers in terms of the new institutions that we have in Canada. We have the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transport, and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. They are involved in production and transportation. We have the Canadian Grain Commission. We have the Canada Grains Council. We have the International Grains Institute. We have the Grain Transportation Co-Ordinator's office which is based in Winnipeg.
We have also undertaken to help farmers through new technologies of forecasting our agricultural needs. This goes into the aspect of what the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville was talking about in terms of what we do about planning. We have undertaken a means by which we can project fairly accurately what our grain production is going to be on a five-year cycle. The first projections related to the years 1971-1975. They are now being forecast up to the year 2000. We also have the operations of the United States department of agriculture, the World Bank, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Grains Council, all involved in helping to make the forecasts.
Grain Prices
There is one aspect of this which I feel is very important. That is the symposium being sponsored by the Canadian Wheat Board on the future capacity of western Canada's grain producing aspects-what are they going to be able to produce? 1 quote from The Globe and Mail on this. "There is going to be a symposium in which our object will be to assess the current productive capacity of the prairies in grains and oil seeds."
It would be premature for us immediately to introduce a motion like this which guarantees a floor price without having the benefit of what this symposium is going to bring to us. What they are also going to be looking at is how we can reach our projection of 30 million tonnes by 1985 and 36 million by 1990. How can we increase exports to those levels? These are the targets that have been set in the Booze-Alien study. How can we identify a necessary strategy for short and long-term action to ensure that these production targets are met?
We recognize that we have problems in the area of transportation. The minister brought these to our attention. I am happy to say that we are doing something about it. Maybe some of this policy has been targeted as being double tracking. We call it upgrading of existing rail facilities to help that export. We are also dealing with the procurement of a number of new hopper cars. There are 2,000 new cars that have recently been put in service by the Canadian Wheat Board. Another 650 have been leased for the year by the Manitoba government. There are outstanding orders for 1,000 from Alberta and Saskatchewan. These will bring to 16,000 the number of available cars.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Go back to the first part of your speech. It was the best part.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: This is a part that I took from an old speech that was given by you, good sir, in this House a long time ago. It came from somewhere anyway, some source of which I am equally proud if it did not come from you. It was certainly postdepression in terms of the quality of debate that has been going on in this House.
Let me conclude. While all of us support this type of thrust, let us proceed to do the further studying that is necessary. Let us proceed with the symposium that is coming up, which can help us assess our real needs. Let us realize the differences that are taking place in the international community. Let us recognize the needs that we are going to have to meet in helping other people become self-sufficient as well.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: 1 would be happy to have a question from members opposite. I would be happy to have the support of my colleagues in continuing what I think is a very important debate in this House this afternoon.
In conclusion, let me say I have appreciated the opportunity of listening to the remarks of hon. members opposite. I hope that the spirit of this bill will always be before this House as we are considering important issues of this nature.

June 27, 1980
2488________________________________
Grain Prices


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker-


Mr. Kempling:: He cuts his lawn every weekend.


John Leslie Evans: Yes I do. I am proud to do it. If those clippings could be brought together in one place, I would be glad to make them available to feed cattle.
Hon. members today have put forward a motion that has to do with a floor price for grain and oil seeds. I would like to say a few words about the problems that I see in establishing such a floor price and some of the difficulties that we would face if such a program were to be brought forward. Some of these difficulties deal with the estimation of farm production costs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Look to the Speaker. Don't look to the door.


William James Kempling: Black Rod is going to get you.


John Leslie Evans: I was not referring to the door. I was referring to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to whom I always look for wisdom and advice.
Unfortunately there are major difficulties in estimating the production costs that would be necessary to establish a meaningful floor price for these grains and oil seeds. First, there is a lack of determined price information for the farmer's own labour and management, which are major inputs into the cost of production. Second, there are problems of computing an opportunity cost for the use of crop land. Finally, there is the extremely wide variability for the cost of producing a farm commodity such as grain in different parts of the prairie provinces.
Madam Speaker, if we had more time this afternoon I would like to go into detail in all of these areas and indicate the economics of establishing a minimum price for grains and oil seeds and why I would not think it would be a wise thing for us to do at this time.


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, there have been some discussions in the House with respect to the availability to members of Parliament for their use, of copies of Bill C-36. The bill is in great demand by all members. I wonder if it might facilitate things, particularly for the printing and distribution branch and for the operation of the House of Commons, not to mention the members, if the House could agree to an order to have extra copies of Bill C-36 printed for the use of members of Parliament in a quantity that would be acceptable to the Clerk of the House of Commons. I put it as precisely as that to assist you and hon. members in understanding the purport of what I ask.


Madam Speaker:: I suppose the House has no objection. In fact we are overwhelmed with requests for this bill. If the House agrees, we will see to it that supplementary copies are printed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-28, an act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act; and Bill C-36, an act respecting the national anthem of Canada.
[DOT]	(1700)



ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT]	(1710)
And being returned:
Madam Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-36, an act respecting the national anthem of Canada-Chapter No. 5. Bill C-17, an act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act-Chapter No. 6. Bill C-27, an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act-Chapter No. 7. Bill S-3, an act to amend an act to provide for the appointment of a Port Warden for the harbour of Quebec and to amend an act to amend and consolidate the acts relating to the office of Port Warden for the harbour of Montreal-Chapter No. 8.
Bill C-21, an act to implement the International Convention for Safe Containers-Chapter No. 9.
Bill C-20, an act to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act- Chapter No. 10.
Bill C-28, an act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act-Chapter No. 11.
Madam Speaker:: It being five o'clock, pursuant to the provisions of subsections 1 and 3 of Standing Order 2, the House stands adjourned until Wednesday, July 2, 1980, at 2 p.m.

I invite all hon. members to come and celebrate this great event for Canada and its people in my chambers.
At 5.13 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

* r;
iM
HHi
;

Wednesday, July 2, 1980