1980-06-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given that the Ministry of State for Science and Technology was created nine years ago and since then, according to figures just released, the research and development performance of Canada has gone from deplorable to disastrous, notwithstanding that six different Liberal ministers have each made vigorous and, 1 am sure, sincere statements about their government's commitment to improving this deplorable situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That the Ministry of State for Science and Technology be disbanded and its budget turned over to the National Research Council or to university research, since this is apparently the only manner in which this ministry can tangibly increase the R and D efforts of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That this House congratulate federal government scientists for developing and selling the Telidon system in the United States, and urge that the Government of Canada establish a Crown corporation to build and market Telidon systems for sale throughout the world, rather than selling it off to the private sector, since it was the public that assumed all the financial risk for Telidon's research and development.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the stated intentions of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to rescind orders in council 1980-83 and 1980-84 which preserve some 30 branch lines in the prairie provinces that are necessary to serve the needs of the producers and the grain elevator companies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That the Minister of Transport, the Liberal cabinet and the New Democratic Party, particularly the hon. member of Yorkton-Melville, be condemned for wanton disregard and disrespect for the producers and communities affected and, further, deplores another obvious attack upon western Canada at a time when conciliation and co-operation are so vital to preserving the fabric of this nation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Harvie Andre: The NDP said "No", Madam Speaker; they are attacking the west.


BRANCH LINE ABANDONMENT-IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO WESTERN AGRICULTURE-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the stated intentions of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to rescind orders in council PC 1980-83 and PC 1980-84, which will place ever-increasing hardships on about 7,500 prairie farmers and cause irreversible damage and disrupt the planning and marketing strategy of every grain elevator company in western Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That this House condemns the Minister of Transport, his ineffectual assistant in the other place, the President of the Treasury Board, along with the New Democratic Party of Canada, for their deliberate disregard and lack of compassion for the people of western Canada which they purport to represent.

June 6, 1980


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (ino)


MARINE TRANSPORT
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the tradition of long, useful service provided to the Fraser River by the sternwheel steamer Samson V which contributes to the safety of all marine traffic in the harbour of New Westminster and on the lower Fraser, and in view of the fact that 14 jobs will be lost if the Samson V is put out of service, this being the intention of the Department of Public Works, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That this House instruct the Minister of Public Works to take steps immediately to ensure that the Samson V continue its important work of ensuring safety on the Fraser River and, therefore, that the Samson V be continued in active service.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter which I am sure will gain the support of all members of this House.
On Monday, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will meet with the provincial premiers to discuss matters relating to our constitution. In view of the fact that the recent referendum in Quebec resulted in a vote of confidence for renewed federalism in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That this House convey its best wishes to all the provincial premiers and the Prime Minister in the hope that, through serious consideration and compromise and in a spirit of co-operation, progress can be achieved toward a renewal of the Canadian federation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I would like to propose a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Given the fact that since the Canada Pension Plan changed over to a new computer, the programming and operation of that computer system has been so badly devised that civil servants with many years experience are quitting their jobs in despair of ever getting the program back on track, and the fact that these departures are compounding an already untenable situation so that even routine applications under the Canada Pension Plan are taking upward of six months to process, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House urge the responsible minister to immediately facilitate the processing of Canada Pension Plan applications by swift and judicious means, so that widows and orphans will not suffer unnecessarily at the whims of a machine.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, presumably with the advice of the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) or the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), made a dramatic seizure of the motor vessel Patricia and its cargo of 22 tons of marijuana and arrested its crew off the coast of Nova Scotia.
Reports that the action may have been unlawful are supported by the return of the master to his U.S. residence without a Canadian criminal charge being laid, the transportation home of the Columbia crew at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer, and the disappearance from public view of the illicit cargo valued at $50 million. To protect the interests of the officers involved, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble):
That this House direct the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice to report on all aspects of the seizure on May 31, 1980, of the MV Patricia, the arrest of the crew and confiscation of the illicit cargo.
June 6, 1980


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The urgency arises from the fact that the governments of Canada and British Columbia have agreed on a deadline of June 10 to arrive at a decision with regard to sharing the costs of certain rail extensions and upgrading of facilities in connection with the delivery to export markets of coal from northeastern British Columbia. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the Minister of Transport avail himself on the first opportunity under the rules of the House to make a statement with respect to any federal participation toward the upgrading and extension of certain BCR rail lines, the upgrading of certain sections of the CNR and the improvement of port facilities on the west coast, all designed to meet the objections of delivering and handling coal for export from northeastern British Columbia to tidewater.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the proposal by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) to sell information collected by Statistics Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nunat-siaq (Mr. Ittinuar):
That the legislation forcing Canadians to provide information to Statistics Canada be modified and that the Liberal government be condemned for unilaterally proposing such an invasion of Canadian privacy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, I direct my question to the Minister of State (Finance). The Minister has stated that Canadians face a 50-50 chance of losing the indexation on their personal income tax this year. The finance critic for the NDP has said that they oppose indexing, in any event.
The tax expert, Mr. John Bossons of Toronto, has said that abolishing indexing would "hit low income people the hardest, and harder every year after the first year". He says that a one-worker family with two young children, earning a taxable income of $10,000, would have a 31.3 per cent tax increase this year, while a taxpayer with an income of $40,000 would have an increase of only 4.5 per cent.
In view of these facts, would the minister now assure the Canadian people, and particularly low-income taxpayers, that the government will not abolish or interfere in any way with the indexation of the personal income tax this year or in any year in the future?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, at this time of year there is naturally a great deal of speculation on the various measures that the Minister of Finance will take at budget time. All I can tell the hon. member is that this issue is of great concern to the Minister of Finance but he has taken no decision on the matter. As is customary, when a decision is made, the minister will certainly not announce it during question period but rather during the budget speech.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the minister is a little less positive. A few days ago he said it was a 50-50 chance and his minister has said it is a probability. Mr. Robert Brown, of Price Waterhouse, calls the suggestion "the most retrogressive step in Canada taxation in 25 years".


An hon. Member:: Question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Members opposite seem very anxious to have me put my question and get this over with. The Prime Minister has said that a Liberal government would make the tax system more equitable. That was a promise he made on January 12,

June 6, 1980
Oral Questions
1980, in Toronto-that his party would make the tax system more equitable if they were returned to power.
How can the government now contemplate de-indexing personal income tax? Is this to make the tax system more equitable, as the Prime Minister promised, or is it another promise which has been cast aside by the Liberals now that they are back in power?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think the issue is serious enough to warrant more than impassioned rhetoric. The Minister of Finance is considering ways and means to make the system much more equitable. As I have indicated, these are just speculations, hypotheses, and the Minister of Finance will make decisions which will continue to honour the promises and commitments made by the Liberal Party of Canada and this government, and those decisions will be aimed at making the tax system much more equitable.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, we had an underhanded election campaign, an underhanded budget, and now we are getting an underhanded tax increase. The Prime Minister said in Toronto on January 12, 1980, that he had five main thrusts if he were re-elected. The fifth was to protect low and middle-income Canadians "by helping First those who most need assistance". Is he going to do this by putting the blocks to the low income taxpayers so that they get an increase this year of 30 per cent in their income tax, while the higher-income taxpayer will have an increase of 4.5 per cent?
Is this the way the minister is studying to carry out the main thrust of the Prime Minister, or has the Prime Minister's promise been forgotten altogether by the Department of Finance?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, save for a short interruption the Liberal Party has been governing the country for several years and since our return to power we have shown not only to the hon. member but to the entire country that we are keeping the promises and commitments made by our party leader and the government will continue to honour its commitments.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON INDEXATION AND TAX INCREASE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, we can certainly see that, among other things, the truth is not highly valued in St. John's West in representing the positions of other parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: 1 am sorry the Minister of Finance is not here to answer this question, but I will put it to the associate minister of finance. In all the speculation that has arisen over the past two weeks concerning the government's position on indexation and a tax increase, is it their view that there is excess demand in the economy at the present time?
Also, is it the government's view that when the economy is heading into a recession is the best time to bring in a massive tax increase which will affect all Canadians? Is that the government's new economic policy?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the member would like to obtain an answer which would conciliate inconsistent factors. First, the question refers to a recession and to pressures on demand. It is quite obvious that the recession in the United States is not felt in the same way as in Canada and that pressures on demand are stronger here, according to the indications now available to us. It also refers to tax increases in a very difficult period and the speculations which are beginning to spread on tax increases are more specifically related to another problem which is also the basic concern of the government, namely the reduction of the deficit. Those matters must not be considered singly but as a whole and we should not try to conciliate inconsistent factors but rather take the best steps in accordance with a comprehensive picture of the economy.


Bob Rae: A supplementary question to the minister, Madam Speaker. It is a novel approach, that the time you start bringing in tax increases is the time the economy is heading into a tailspin. That is novel economics.
Will the minister give the House the commitment that a cost of living tax credit scheme, which will give the most benefit to Canadians who earn the least, will be provided in the budget, that there will be a budget-


John Carnell Crosbie: There was one in the last budget.


Bob Rae: -and that there will be a commitment from this government that there will be no net increase in personal taxes for those Canadians who can afford it least?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I feel that this government's concern for the needy is evident. A few weeks ago this Parliament was called upon to approve a $35 increase to the GIS, which I feel is an indication of the government's concern for the small wage earner.
The hon. member is seeking from the Minister of Finance during oral question period a commitment with regard to budgetary legislation. This is not our custom and, as I have already indicated, the Minister of Finance will continue to protect those whom Liberals have always tried to protect, that
June 6, 1980

is the needy within our society, and he will make public his decisions during his budget speech.


ELDORADO NUCLEAR
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister announced last month his decision to force Eldorado Nuclear to build a refinery in Blind River. This decision was made without prior consultation with the board of directors of Eldorado, against the recommendations of the management and the directors of the company, and reversed the decision of the previous government.
Given the fact that the cost to the company of the minister's decision will be in the vicinity of $60 million, given the fact that the company is 100 per cent government owned, and that the company has been forced to borrow money on private markets to cover its capital costs, would the minister-at least in the interest of honesty-effect the transfer of moneys involved from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to Eldorado in order that the accounts of the government would reflect the true costs of this blatant Liberal patronage?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, 1 regret to inform the hon. member that he is misinformed as usual. First, 1 did consult the board of directors before announcing the decision.


An hon. Member:: We know what your definition is.


An hon. Member:: Consult?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, I did consult them.


An hon. Member:: You told them.


Marc Lalonde: I met with them, but the decision was a government decision. I indicated that the government made that decision on the basis of fairness and on the basis of helping a region that needed help.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Then let the blue book reflect that.


Marc Lalonde: Second, as far as additional cost is concerned, the hon. member may speculate on increases, but 1 have indicated that the cost would increase by moving the refinery in northern Ontario. This was made as a definite government policy decision to the effect that we should be ready to incur additional costs and, as I said, to bring jobs to areas where in good part the raw material is found.
Oral Questions
As far as the request for additional financing by Eldorado is concerned, that request and plan was made and was in the works before the decision to move the refinery to Port Hope was taken. It was a decision independent of the decision to open a new refinery in Blind River rather than in Port Hope. It is a totally different situation. In any event, Eldorado needed additional financing for its capital expansion. The company proposed to take that decision, and I am very glad that they have been successful in arranging the financing.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the mere fact that Eldorado is now scurrying around trying to rationalize the unfortunate decision imposed upon them by the minister in setting up a sort of Mickey Mouse operation in Blind River, and reversing, in effect, the decision of the minister is an indication of whether or not there was adequate consultation or any consultation at all.
The minister's parliamentary secretary indicated last week that it was not the policy of this government to interfere with the affairs of Crown corporations and that they would act independently. Would the minister now stand in his place to either repudiate his parliamentary secretary and indicate that he was wrong in that assessment, or will he tell us whether or not he will allow Eldorado to make decisions in their best interests under their mandate, and not continue to interfere? Also, will he indicate that the policy is not to get involved in the management of Crown corporations under his jurisdiction?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am afraid, again, that the Mickey Mouse is not in Blind River but comes from Saskatoon West.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Watch out, Pinocchio.


Marc Lalonde: As far as the question of the hon. member is concerned, I want to assure him-I have stated it quite clearly in this House-that the job of the minister is not to second-guess management decisions, but there are government responsibilities that have to be fulfilled.


Harvie Andre: At least blush when you say that.


Marc Lalonde: When the government decides, for policy reasons, to vary a decision by any corporation, the government makes it publicly and takes responsibility for it. This is what we have done in the case of the refinery that is being opened in Blind River. We are very proud of that decision. We think it is the right one. I am very happy, also, to endorse the plans of the corporation to expand and modify its operations in Port Hope, which will ensure that Port Hope will have a very active operation in the next few years.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my final supplementary to the Minister of Employment and Immi-

June 6, 1980
Oral Questions
gration. In light of the cost-some $60 million-to the taxpayers of Canada for government patronage, which is about one-half the cost of the total program announced by the minister this week with respect to employment, has the minister discussed with his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, whether this money would be better applied to employment programs for the people of this country, particularly women and native people? Is he going to allow himself and the cabinet to be pushed around by the Pinocchio of Canadian politics?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, not only have I discussed this matter with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources; 1 have also had the benefit of constant consultation with my seatmate, the Minister of State for Mines, who has assured me on many occasions that the move of Eldorado mines is one of the long-term employment developments that will assist northern Ontario, which is one of the regions needing a high degree of employment.
Furthermore, one of the conditions attached to the move was that there be a major program of employment of native people in northern Ontario. We can thank the Minister of State for Mines for that particular intervention. 1 think we will see very productive results in a very short period of time.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board who has been given responsibility by the Prime Minister for devising a Crown corporations' policy for this government.
The President of the Treasury Board will know that Bill C-27 introduced by the previous government provided for corporations which had been issued directives by the federal cabinet to be able to apply for compensation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the cost of those directives. Will the minister indicate whether that continues to be the policy of the Government of Canada, and will Eldorado Nuclear be able to apply to the Government of Canada to receive compensation for this patronage decision that was made by the federal government?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. member that the whole area of Crown corporations' legislation is under review.


An hon. Member:: No kidding!


Donald James Johnston: The hon. gentleman laughs. There is good reason for it to be under review, as the hon. member knows. Many suggestions and modifications have been put forward with respect to Bill C-27. I hope to bring forward a discussion
paper and, hopefully, some legislation will be brought down in the relatively near future.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, my question is a very straightforward one. Will Eldorado Nuclear be able to apply to the Government of Canada for compensation as a result of this patronage directive which was issued to it by the Government of Canada? Does the government intend to incorporate in any subsequent legislation respecting Crown corporations the right of Crown corporations to apply for that sort of compensation?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, it seems that my answer was very straightforward.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: The provision to which the hon. member is referring is not in the law at the present time. Obviously, that bill and its provisions are being reconsidered. Accordingly, when the bill is brought down, whatever Crown corporations are subject to directives from the government will have the opportunity of taking advantage of whatever provisions the bill contains.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister is no doubt aware that there are regulations in the United States which effectively exclude exporters of urban transit facilities from access to that market.
Is the minister aware, specifically, that Flyer Coach of Manitoba, a successful corporation, is now considering establishing a plant in North Dakota, thus moving Canadian jobs south, because of these U.S. regulations? If so, what is he doing to get them changed?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, we have been working actively with American officials to reach agreement to change these regulations. In view of the case brought to my attention by my hon. friend, I will instruct our officials to expedite these discussions.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, this problem has existed for many years, before the Liberals were in power. We have successful urban transit companies such as Bombardier, Hawker Siddeley, as well as Flyer Coach. We have a multibillion dollar trade deficit in manufactured goods every year with the United States. When will the government be able to announce to Canada that we are to have fair access to the United States for manufactured goods, just as they have to our markets?
June 6, 1980


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we will make the announcement as soon as we have the right type of agreement for Canadian workers and the Canadian economy.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, with this government we can wait forever for that announcement. Since success with the American government on this matter will depend ultimately on their decision, I would like to ask the minister a question with regard to this government's promises that we heard so much about earlier in the question period.
Since the Liberals promised to provide assistance in the way of funds for urban transit to Canadian municipalities, will the minister now assure the House that they will implement that promise, so that cities from Vancouver in the west to St. John's in the east will at least have money with which to buy urban transit facilities that are produced in Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This is an important point. Madam Speaker. I will be discussing it with my colleagues, the Minister of Transport and the minister responsible for urban affairs.


AIR TRANSPORT
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, who I believe is also the acting prime minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Acting is right.


Howard Edward Crosby: The minister is aware of the decision made on April 9 of this year by the Canadian Transport Commission, whereby CP Air was granted permission to serve the Halifax-Toronto route and Eastern Provincial Airways was denied access to the same route.
The Toronto Globe and Mail said the decision demonstrated an "utterly lazy incomprehension of Canada's problems" and should be overturned by the cabinet. Will the minister confirm that the decision has been appealed, and to what authority? Will he also indicate when any such appeal will be heard and determined, and what considerations will be involved in the appeal process?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I can answer this question in part, for sure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: First, one's view on the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission on this matter depends very much upon which region of Canada he comes from. I have heard varied views on the subject; some totally opposed, in fact.
Second, this decision has been appealed to cabinet, to the Minister of Transport. Third, all documents relevant to this appeal will, I believe, be filed by June 16. A decision by cabinet will then be made on the subject one way or the other.
Oral Questions


Howard Edward Crosby: The minister referred to the views of the people in Atlantic Canada. I know he is aware that all four Atlantic premiers supported the position of Eastern Provincial Airways. Most members of Parliament from the Atlantic area, members of the legislatures and even municipal councils supported the position of Eastern Provincial Airways. I would ask the minister what relevance this has to the decision-making process of the Canadian Transport Commission: if they do not pay any attention to these kinds of representations, why do they hear them?
I would, at the same time, ask the minister to indicate if there is anything he can do to stop CP Air advertising the route as though the decision had already been taken on appeal, by advertising new and very competitive rates and the like.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the views of the people of the Atlantic provinces have been taken into consideration by the CTC. These people, in great number, made representations to the CTC. Obviously, they will be taken into account by the government as well in the appeal procedure to which I referred a moment ago. Without appearing to take sides-I would not want to do that at this moment-a number of people from the maritimes have written to me indicating their agreement with the decision. Reference has been made to substantial travel which would take place to the maritimes from western Canada. So it is not a black and white situation, and that is why it will be a difficult decision to make.


TRANSPORT
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, my question, too, is addressed to the Minister of Transport. It will take him from the east coast to the west coast, where he has spent a lot of time negotiating with the province of British Columbia in an attempt to reach an agreement by June 10 with respect to the improvement of certain infrastructures which will facilitate the transportation of northeast coal to export markets.
Is the minister in a position today to tell the House what assurances he has been able to give the British Columbia government, whose representatives are leaving for Japan to sign coal deals, that the federal government will live up to the commitment made by the former government, namely, to share in the cost of extending certain sections of the British Columbia Railway and upgrading the facilities of the CNR and certain port facilities to bring about these objectives?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am glad it is now recognized that I am doing my job with respect to the west coast. Thank you very much. The situation is this: on May 5 a number of members of this cabinet were in Victoria and had a long discussion with the committee on economic development of that province. At that

June 6, 1980
Oral Questions
point, an agreement in principle was reached and a certain sum of money, quite substantial, was left on the table by the federal government.
Following this agreement in principle, however, the government of the province changed its mind with regard to two major aspects of this project. One of them concerns the question of responsibility for putting together, maintaining and operating the transportation of the coal from the mine to the port. Originally, it was supposed to be the BCR; now the government of British Columbia has asked CN to do it, and CN, energetically and valiantly, has agreed to accept this responsibility-in difficult circumstances, it must be said. Using figures which were available, they have tried to put together a package, on which they reported to us yesterday. That package is now being refined, hardened and analysed, and the minister in charge of economic development at the federal level will be in touch with his counterpart in British Columbia in a few days.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the hon. gentleman advise the House when the administration intends to implement a decision taken many months ago by the previous administration to provide for the opening of duty-free shops at border crossing points with the United States?
Can he advise us that the delay in implementing this decision is a matter of inertia? Or is it the intention to make the announcement with due fanfare about the end of the tourist season?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: want to thank the hon. member for the question and tell him that the record of this government is certainly not one of inertia, but indeed the opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: We are reviewing the work which was done previously. I doubt there will be substantial change, but there will be some changes. I share the hon. member's concern with regard to bringing forward this policy as soon as possible. 1 think it is important for business in Canada, particularly the tourist industry, and I hope we can bring forward a policy in the shortest possible time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister indicate the area in which revision is required, or is it merely a formality of dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's" and making some changes for the sake of change in a decision which had been years in preparation, which had involved years of planning and which had been hardened and firmed by the cabinet many months ago?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, particularly in the area of licensing, I want to be assured that the best possible policy is put forward. I hope we shall be in a position very shortly to bring forward that policy.


An hon. Member:: The machinery will be good for Liberals.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker,
I would like to put a question to the acting prime minister. Some months ago-in fact, almost a year ago-in the city of Vancouver a number of private citizens raised over $4 million as a contribution to a new art gallery. As a consequence of those funds being raised on the basis that pledges would be sustained as long as the federal government matched them, the Conservative government made a commitment that the money would be available for a new art gallery in Vancouver, which is long overdue. Almost all those who are knowledgeable in this matter, from the east coast to the west coast, have supported and endorsed the object of the exercise in Vancouver.
I want to ask the acting prime minister, or whoever is prepared to answer, whether this commitment which the government I represented made to the city of Vancouver is to be honoured, or whether we must put up with what a Vancouver editorial called the "blackmail argument" put forward by the Secretary of State, that it would only come along if, indeed-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member has already put his question.


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, speaking today for the Secretary of State, I would reply that the situation of the Vancouver gallery is one of very great concern to us, particularly to me, as I was secretary of state at the time the original discussions took place.
I think it fair to say, Madam Speaker, that as a government we are very anxious to provide what support we can, but it is undoubtedly true that the initiative of the Conservative government in turning over to the provinces essential control of Loto Canada funds has made it much more difficult to respond to the request which was made to us. As you know, Madam Speaker, the question of the status of Loto Canada is one which preoccupies the government at the present time. I simply express the hope that it will be possible at some stage to provide the kind of support which is very much needed in the area. But at the moment-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: I want to ask the hon. member whether it is now the policy of the government, because of changes in the lottery situation, that there is to be no way for something as vital to the cultural community of western Canada as that art gallery.
June 6, 1980

That is exactly what I started to put to the minister before Your Honour, quite appropriately, I must confess, cut me off. That is the kind of blackmail which the citizens in Vancouver are saying is not satisfactory.
Can the minister tell me whether the proper federal contribution to that art gallery, which is not out of line-it has been done with other cities, and the hon. minister knows it-is going to be stopped because of the change in the lottery situation?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I do not think the hon. gentleman's words accurately reflect the response I made to him. There used to be a program of capital assistance for a variety of cultural institutions across the country. In my view, regrettably but necessarily in view of past restraint programs, that capital assistance came to an end. It was the hope of the government that the accession of Loto Canada revenues to the federal government would enable the government to support a variety of very useful projects such as the one the hon. member has described.
I do not agree that it is a question of blackmail to simply reiterate the fact that the previous capital funding program disappeared under restraint, and it was hoped to use Loto Canada funds to make up the difference. The fact of the matter is that under the previous Liberal government there was a guarantee of a much stronger flow of funds from Loto Canada to support sports and the arts than could take place as a result of the arrangements which the Conservative government made to turn over the essential direction of Loto Canada to the provinces. That is not a question of blackmail, Madam Speaker; it is a question of the fact.
The decision which the Conservatives took, with whatever purposes in mind, has made it much more difficult to find funds for those purposes. This does not exclude the possibility that other funds may be found, but the action of the Conservative government has made it much more difficult to respond to that kind of request.


COMPOSITION OF NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE-GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE IN QUEBEC MINE TRAGEDY
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to direct my question to the Minister of State for M ines. it arises from remarks made by the minister on May 28 at the annual meeting of the Mining Association of Canada, that she-
-is prepared to meet with any group from the mining industry, whether they represent industry, the union, or others, to seek ways to make the mining industry a safe and healthy place to work-
In view of her intention to "open the doors to labour", to overcome "insufficient communication" between labour and management in the mining industry, and in view of the minister's recent announcement of the names of those who will serve
Oral Questions
on the national advisory committee on the mining industry, can the minister tell the House why-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I feel that some preambles are really too long. Would the hon. member come to his question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: We are not able to do justice to all members who want to be recognized. It is important that hon. members discipline themselves and not precede their questions with long preambles, especially when they are reading them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I was just about to begin my short question when you rose. Will the minister explain, in light of those remarks, her recent announcement that all those who were serving on the national advisory committee on the mining industry come from the top executive level of management, and there is no one from labour; and will she give a commitment to change that in the next few weeks?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, may I assure the hon. member for Kootenay West that I intend to do just that. 1 opened the doors to labour just this morning. 1 spoke with Stewart Cooke, of the United Steelworkers of America-I speak to him on an average of twice a week-and in fact I discussed with him the possibility of including the coal miners from the east coast in some sort of committee in which we can discuss the health and safety of the workers. I intend to pursue it with great vigour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister. In the same spirit, and in view of the message just received from the United Steelworkers of America and the Ontario president of Inco regarding the eight miners buried at Val d'Or, Quebec, and in view of the apparent inability or lack of will on the part of the federal government so far to do anything, will the minister now act on this offer of Inco and the Steelworkers and co-ordinate assistance in this emergency? Further, will she undertake to form a standing, mobile national rescue team which can assist in this kind of life and death emergency in the future?


Judith A. Erola: It is just such a discussion that I had this morning with the minister of mines in Quebec, the hon. Mr. Berube. He assured me, as the hon. member is aware, that the matter is under provincial jurisdiction, that it is well coordinated and that they require at present no additional assistance. We have offered him whatever assistance and expertise is necessary through our department, and we are awaiting the call for help.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 6, 1980
Oral Questions


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the sympathetic Minister of Transport. First, I want to make it clear that I have nothing against EPA flights between Halifax and Toronto. Could the minister assure hon. members from the four Atlantic provinces that he will seek a commitment from EPA to improve their intraregional service, and especially to provide service to the areas of the region which do not have one now?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will add this concern to those 1 already have.


RAILWAYS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Having regard to the minister's intention to rescind orders in council which preserved the status of some 30 branch lines in western Canada, and given the fact that such a decision to preserve these branch lines was taken after full consultation with the elevator companies and the producers involved, may I ask the minister if he has discussed his plan of action with the elevator companies?
Also, can he advise the House whether he consulted the minister in the other place in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Minister of State for Economic Development, since the decision that he is proposing will have a negative impact upon grain producers in western Canada and, indeed, upon the economy of western Canada? If so, do they agree with his proposed course of action?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, 1 must say I was surprised to hear this morning that a decision had been made. I was specific in the committee yesterday in saying that this matter was being reviewed.
I have a number of preoccupations of which I spoke yesterday in the committee. The first one is the rising percentage of lines to be rehabilitated and the rising costs that result from it. By this time, with this recent addition, 82 per cent of the branch lines would have to be rehabilitated and the cost would be the equivalent of two years of the present budget, which is substantial; that is, $70 million a year. So I am preoccupied by the lack of priority, the lack of discipline in this process.
My second preoccupation is the process itself. In the past, these rail lines to be rehabilitated were identified by an official or a semi-official process. Consultations took place, explanations were given and decisions were made. In the last instance,
this process was conducted by elected members of the party then in power and it is very difficult for me to justify the prohibition orders in view of the fact that I do not have access to the reasoning that preceded them. I was frank enough with the committee to say what my preoccupations were at this time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is quite obvious that the minister is clearly not satisfied with the decision taken by the previous government in so far as costs are concerned. Even the railways would indicate to him that those costs could be reduced rather dramatically.
My supplementary question is as follows: Since the minister's action will simply further delay the disposition of branch lines-which is something that has been kicking around for some five years-does he not consider his action to be blatantly unfair to the 7,500 producers who will be affected, as well as to the communities that will be affected? This will simply perpetuate further anxiety, apprehension and hardship on the producers and communities affected. Cannot he accept the sheer fact that the elevator companies want these services retained, and so do the producers? If he were at all interested in western Canada, he and his government would ensure that those services were retained.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I can only repeat my reasoning. It may be that if all these lines in orders 16, 17 and 18 are not retained for rehabilitation, some farmers might be discontented. But the decision has not been made. A number of these lines could be rehabilitated.
I have in mind, also, the discontent of people on lines that have already been identified for inclusion in the system who will not have the benefit of that rehabilitation because money will not be available. That is a consideration which my friend should have in mind also. I am looking at the total number of people involved in this matter, and 1 am sorry if a limited number might be affected by the decision that will be made. But, again, the decision has not yet been made.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, as one who had, by virtue of our mutual profession, the obligation to use the air services between Atlantic Canada and central Canada, I should like to draw to your attention the fact that the scheduling of the competitive lines with EPA has been such as to make it so inconvenient for travellers travelling by EPA that there might be some element of discontent expressed from Atlantic Canada in that regard.
I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he would take into consideration, for the convenience of all the citizens of Atlantic and perhaps central Canada, the idea that his
June 6, 1980

office should be exercised to ensure that there be reasonable connections between EPA and the regional carrier in Atlantic Canada and the airlines which serve the rest of Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I welcome this representation, Madam Speaker.


Fred Alward McCain: The situation is that there are parallel flights by Air Canada and EPA to the same destination.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member ask his question and make it brief?


Fred Alward McCain: What will the minister do to eliminate simultaneous flights by competitive lines? What will he do to eliminate three-hour waits in Montreal when flying from Ottawa to Frederiction? What will he do to make it possible for the people in Atlantic Canada in general, and for EPA in particular to become a viable unit? This company is of great importance to the Atlantic area and should be granted the Toronto franchise.


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 will do my very best, Madam Speaker.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the acting prime minister regarding NORAD being placed on strike alert on Tuesday as a result of a computer error-the second such error in seven months-and at least one plane taking off from Hawaii.
I should like to ask the acting prime minister whether any Canadian bases were put on alert, as Comox was last time, and whether any planes in the Canadian squadrons assigned to NORAD took off.


An hon. Member:: And have they returned?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am advised that of course this was a false alarm and that Canada was informed of the false alarm. I am also informed that no action resulted from it on Canadian soil.
Point of Order-Mr. Crosbie INDUSTRY


TELIDON PROJECT-APPLICATIONS UNDER ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the success of the Telidon project announced today, is the minister prepared to lend his support to the development and demonstration of private enterprise communication proposals such as the Cable Link Company project in Sault Ste. Marie which has applied for assistance from the enterprise development program, but so far seems to have been bogged down by red tape and now will probably be developed in the United States?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I will be very happy to look into the status of the enterprise development program application in question and report back to the hon. member as soon as possible.


POINT OF ORDER
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my point of order has to do with the remarks of the finance critic of the NDP during question period, who suggested that truth was somehow lacking in a comment I had made about the NDP opposing the indexing of personal income tax. As a matter of fact, this may be a question of privilege.
I should like to refer to Hansard of June 2, 1980, which clearly shows that the NDP is opposed to indexing of personal income tax, an opposition which was first expressed by them in 1973. At page 1625 of Hansard of June 2, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) asked this question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau):
While we may agree that the index is particularly regressive and we oppose its introduction-
That is what the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood said, that he was opposed to indexing and indexing was regressive.
That was no surprise to me because in 1973 his party pooh-poohed the whole suggestion made in the Turner budget of that year. I should like to quote from Hansard of February 21, 1973, at page 1527 when the NDP finance critic spoke in the House about indexing in reply to the budget speech of Mr. Turner. Mr. Saltsman then said that the NDP had "reservations about the indexed income system". They did not care about the low-income taxpayers of Canada. Further on the same page he indicated that indexing was "phony". So the hon. member's indignation was certainly phony when I said that they opposed indexing.
Further on at page 1529 Mr. Saltsman said that the NDP "did not think it is a very good idea". This was the official

June 6, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Crosbie
position of the New Democratic Party on a matter which is to help the ordinary taxpayer when faced with inflation. The New Democratic Party does not care what happens to the taxpayers of this country when they are faced with inflation or in any other way. "Sock it to the taxpayer, the low, medium or high-income taxpayer."
I call on the member for Toronto-Broadview or whatever the district is-Greenwood-Broadview;-it is green, anyway-


An hon. Member:: Broadview-Greenwood.


John Carnell Crosbie: Broadview-Greenwood-to retract his statements that we did not recognize the truth when we saw it in St. John's West. The truth is that the NDP is opposed to indexing personal income tax so that taxpayers will avoid being unfairly taxed because of inflation. They opposed it in 1973. They opposed it again on June 2, 1980. The member might as well face the fact that they are opposing indexing. We are opposing the government's removing indexing; they will support it. We will meet them on the field of battle if the government dares to try removing indexing from income tax.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and I have met before on the field of battle. 1 look forward to meeting with him again.


An hon. Member:: Get on with it.


Bob Rae: Of course, 1 appreciate his clear analysis of the position of the New Democratic Party. I did not raise this question of privilege; he did. Instead of giving us an opportunity to respond, he introduced his question by way of an introduction to a member for the Liberal party, as a form of aside, giving what is an extremely partial account of the position-


An hon. Member:: A half-statement.


Bob Rae: A half-statement, a half-baked and half-truthful statement.


John Carnell Crosbie: What is your position?


Bob Rae: The hon. member should wait a while. If he wants to hear our position, I can give it to him at great length and with tremendous clarity.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is time you did.


Bob Rae: No, there is no problem. It was a half-statement. I think that is niggardly. One talks about the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) sneaking in a budget. I think the hon. member for St. John's West is no better.


An hon. Member:: He is worse.


Bob Rae: He is sneaking in a casual aside which is a misrepresentation of the position of the New Democratic Party. The member should read into the record the entire exchange between the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and myself on June 2, and the exchange between myself and the M inister of State for Finance today. Yes, it is true that we were opposed in 1973 to the kind of indexation which was produced in 1973-


John Carnell Crosbie: You had to admit it.


Bob Rae: -for the simple reason that, like everything the Tory party presents, it gave the most to those who had the most and the least to those who had the least. Why the hon. member for St. John's West was defeated as a minister when he brought in his pathetic budget on December 12 was because he was giving the most to those who had the most and the least to those who had the least.


John Carnell Crosbie: Read that budget again.


Mr. Kempling:: Where were you when we needed you?


Bob Rae: I have read the budget many times. 1 have not read it as often as the Minister of Finance, but I have read it a number of times. That is precisely why on the principle of indexation our party has said consistently that rather than having a system of indexation which gives the most to those who have the most and the least to those who have the least, there should be a principle of protection from the effects of the cost of living which would take the form of a cost of living tax credit. That tax credit would give the most to those people who have the least, and the least to those people in the higher income brackets. That is the clearest difference between our two parties.
I do not mind the hon. member for St. John's West saying that he disagrees, but he thinks he has a monopoly on the term "indexation". He thinks the indexation invented by him is the only kind of indexation known to mankind. That is an absurd position. The hon. member did not invent the wheel, he did not invent good budgets and he did not invent the science of economics. Certainly he did not invent the science of fair, forensic display in the House of Commons. If he wants to be fair and if he wants to be a man about it, he would come out and say exactly what his opposition is to the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: He would say that we in the New Democratic Party have a principle of indexation and that they in the Tory party have a principle of indexation. We do not know what members opposite have over there because they have never made up their minds on anything. But he should at least have respect for the integrity of other members and respect for the integrity of our party to say that no party has fought harder for protection against the effects of the cost of living than the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Well, I am just a woman, but I must say that this is not a point of order; obviously it is a point of
June 6, 1980

debate, and the two members have had a chance to have this exchange under the disguise of a point of procedure.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege related to the government business of yesterday. 1 sat in this House at 3.30 in the afternoon and listened to the hon. House leader respond to the House leader from this side about the business to be discussed in the House yesterday. I have subsequently had an opportunity to check my recollection by reading Hansard. Nowhere in the Hansard record and nowhere in my recollection was there any indication that this House would go into Committee of the Whole to discuss the employment tax credit. There was no indication subsequent to that 3.30 announcement.
We had members on this side of the House who wished to address the principle of Bill C-19 during debate on second reading. They were here all afternoon but did not have the opportunity. Acting on what we felt to be the information given to us by the House leader, we had speakers arranged for the evening to speak to the unemployment tax credit bill starting at eight o'clock. We arrived in this House to discover that we were moving through second reading stage and into Committee of the Whole. The opportunity to debate that bill on second reading was lost for many of the constituents in this country because members were not warned that it would happen and they were not present.
Perhaps of more importance, if one checks the record last evening, is that I think it is proper procedure in Committee of the Whole for members of this House to have an opportunity to gather from the minister the information required to make an intelligent decision about a bill and perhaps to move amendments. The minister responsible for this bill was in the House last evening. I suspect that moving Committee of the Whole was a surprise to him. Certainly there was no evidence that he had officials present. If one examines that two-hour record, it becomes relatively clear that the minister did not have the information in his head to answer the very simple questions that were put on occasion; that he did not have the assistance of officials who would have the normal kind of documentation to provide him with the detailed information which this House required; and that that process was an infringement of privileges of all members of this House.
If we are to make this place function as efficiently as possible, then we must have some sense of warning as to the issues which will be debated on any given day and the sequence of events which are likely to occur. I hope Madam Speaker will use her good offices to ensure this kind of situation will not arise in the future.
Privilege-Mr. Hawkes


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I would like to make two short points on the same question of privilege. I too was in the House yesterday at three o'clock, I was here when the House recessed for the dinner hour, and also when the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod came in to summon us to the other place. I came back shortly after eight o'clock. I was about five minutes late but I had been prepared to speak on Bill C-3, which was supposed to be the bill to be called. I had prepared myself for debate on that matter, only to find that the House was then in Committee of the Whole dealing with Bill C-19.
There are two points I wish to make. First, 1 was frustrated in my attempt to contribute to informed debate in the House. I think it is an offence against my privilege that I was not given the courtesy by this Liberal government of being notified of its plans. 1 should not be the victim of poor planning on the part of the Liberal government in terms of its legislative program, or of its discourtesy in not letting hon. members of the House know of the change in plans.
Second, I believe it frustrates members of the House, given the government's stated intent that it wants quality and informed debate in the House, to find the order of business suddenly changed. This frustrates that kind of informed participation, particularly when the House goes into Committee of the Whole. This tells members of the House, in effect, that the government really does not care about the quality of debate, but that it simply plans to go through Committee of the Whole stage. If the government cared at all, it would allow hon. members some time for preparation and would permit proper, informed debate. The very fact that such a thing is sprung on us on the spur of the moment tells me that the government really is not calling for informed debate or participation, but is simply going through the motion. I consider that an affront to all members of the House, including government members, and certainly an infringement of my privileges.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, may I draw page 1786 of Hansard to the attention of the two hon. members who have just spoken, specifically my answer yesterday to a question put by the House leader of the official opposition. It is very clear from what is recorded in the second column that it was possible that we would go into Committee of the Whole yesterday on Bill C-19. What I said was:
I committed myself to my colleagues this morning-
I was speaking of the House leaders.
-that if we were to end the second reading stage of Bill C-19 before five o'clock today, tonight we would switch to Bill C-3-
That was not the case. What that meant was that if we had concluded second reading stage of Bill C-19 before five o'clock, we would have gone to Bill C-3 in the evening. The fact is that at five o'clock we had not concluded the second reading stage of Bill C-19 and, consequently-well, I suppose they are intelligent enough to understand the consequences. I think they were the victims of their lack of attention, Madam

June 6, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Hawkes
Speaker, or a lack of communication with their own House leader.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I rise in light of the rather unfortunate suggestion that our House leader was not performing his duty properly. I am the acting House leader of our party today.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1 suggest that in light of this typical activity on the part of the government House leader, who should be interested in developing an atmosphere in this House of co-operation, if he is legitimately interested in getting legislation through, he should not make the smart aleck remarks for which he is so famous. Perhaps, Madam Speaker, we might want to reserve this point until my House leader returns to the House. He is on business today that caused him to be out of Ottawa.
In light of that kind of smart aleck remark, 1 suggest that perhaps we should wait until our House leader returns in order to determine what kind of arrangement, consultation and discussion took place between the government House leader and opposition members. Maybe in this way we can get to the bottom of this very important question of privilege raised by my friend, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, 1 do not propose to spin this argument out. I have to say that my colleagues and I were not taken by surprise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The item in question, Madam Speaker, the debate in Committee of the Whole on the bill, is still before us. Any day next week we can have all of the discussion anyone wants. Are we not just wasting time having this discussion now?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think 1 am sufficiently informed of what seems to have taken place that 1 do not need to listen to further argument. 1 apologize to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) for not recognizing him.
It seems to me that in some area there must have been a lack of communication. The information was available either on the order paper or in statements made in the House. It is not a task of the Chair to stipulate in respect of this matter. The affairs of the House of Commons are entirely in the hands of the House of Commons, and the government is, of course, responsible for determining the order of business. That seems to have been done.
There might have been a lack of communication, but 1 am sure that members will, among themselves and with their House leaders, take the necessary steps to prevent again being taken by surprise. 1 am sorry the hon. member seems to have been taken by surprise, but it seems that the information was available.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second Report of Standing Committee on Transport-Mr. Malepart.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.}

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table an extract of the minutes of the meeting of internal economy commissioners which was held on June 4, 1980, respecting the review of the salary of some employees of the House of Commons.


PETITION
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I should like to present a petition on behalf of over 7,000 residents of British Columbia who want the Samson V, a stern wheel steamer with 43 years of service, to continue its long history of providing service on the Fraser River by tending navigation buoys and removing snags and deadheads from the river, thereby ensuring safety for fishermen, freighters and pleasure boaters in the harbour of New Westminster and on the Lower Fraser River. On behalf of the petitioners, 1 ask for serious consideration by the government of their request that the Samson V be continued in active service.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that there have been consultations among the representatives of the parties and that it has not been possible to reach an agreement under the provisions of Standing Order 75a or 75b in respect of the proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill
June 6, 1980

C-30, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81. 1 wish to give notice that, at a future sitting of the House, 1 shall propose a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 75c, to allocate one additional sitting day to the second reading stage of the said bill.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 165, 166, 244, 319, 320, 594, 692, and 870.
1 would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is caffeine considered by the Department of National Health and Welfare as the drug consumed the most in Canada in various forms and, if not, what is such drug?
2.	Is it an established fact that caffeine can often cause cardiac arythmias?
3.	Has the department any evidence that caffeine may cause cleft palates and other deformities in unborn children, still-born babies and spontaneous abortions?
4.	Is the Department aware that the United States Food and Drug Administration has tested caffeine on rats with the result that some have been bom without toes?
5.	Is caffeine regulated by any federal law and, if not, for what reason?
6.	What level of caffeine, in the department's view, can be consumed daily by the average individual without causing physical harm?
7.	Is the department considering the labelling of products containing caffeine as potentially dangerous above certain amounts of consumption?
8.	What amount of caffeine is in (a) ten ounces of Coca-Cola (b) one cup of coffee (c) one cup of ordinary tea (d) one bottle of Pepsi-Cola?
9.	Is there evidence to show that caffeine can cause anxiety, tremors, higher blood pressure, inability to sleep and ulcers?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Definite evidence to answer this question is not available. However, the Department of National Health and Welfare estimates that on the basis of the amount used by Canadians, alcohol ranks first.
2.	Caffeine may produce cardiac arythmias in some susceptible individuals.
3.	The department is not aware of any evidence indicating that the ingestion of caffeine causes birth abnormalities in urborn children, stillborn babies, or spontaneous abortions. Two retrospective epidemiological studies of more than 14,000 mothers whose caffeine consumption was tabulated revealed no apparent association between caffeine consumption was tabulated revealed no apparent association between caffeine intake and abnormalities in their offspring.
Order Paper Questions
4.	The department is aware of a preliminary study conducted by the United States food and drug administration in which fetuses were observed with missing digits when caffeine was administered at a massive dose level of 80 milligrams per kilogram of body weight by mouth to pregnant female rats. There is no evidence that caffeine consumption during pregnancy is associated with missing digits in humaninfants.
5.	Caffeine is regulated in part B of the food and drug regulations, specifically table 8, division 16, restricting its use as a food additive to cola type beverages, the maximum level of use n to exceed 200 parts per million. Caffeine is used as a drug and is regulated in the same manner as all drugs.
6.	Although it is known that reversible pharmacological effects of caffeine become manifest at doses in excess of 300 milligrams, there is no evidence that lasting harmful effects occur below the lethal dose of approximately 10 grams.
7.	Based on the scientific data available at this time, the department is not considering the labelling of products containing caffeine as potentially dangerous.
8.	(a) and (d) A ten-ounce bottle of cola beverage (Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola) contains approximately 40 to 50 milligrams caffeine. The caffeine content of an average cup of coffee is approximately 85 milligrams and an average cup of tea 50 milligrams.
(b) and (c) These values may vary slightly depending on the method and length of time of brewing.
9.	Reactions in some individuals may be observed following the ingestion of excessive amounts of caffeine. These occur mainly in the nervous system producing insomnia, restlessness, excitement and tension, but these symptoms are readily reversible. There is no concrete evidence that caffeine induces high blood pressure or peptic ulcers.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are all the details possessed by the Department of National Health and Welfare regarding calcium pangamate, sometimes sold under the name of Nyamik 15?
2.	Is the drug sometimes referred to as Vitamin B-15 and has it been classified as such in Canada or is it being considered?
3.	To the knowledge of the department, have certain American doctors referred to it as vitamin B-15 and have they claimed that their studies have shown that it gives energy to a person within a 1/2 hour to an hour after consumption?
4.	Has the drug, in the department's view, any valid use whatsoever and (a) if so, what are such uses (b) if not, is its promotion therefore questionable?


Monique Bégin: 1. Calcium pangamate is a salt of pangamic acid which can be extracted from apricot kernels, peach stones and rice bran. It is found in many seeds and is also present in brewer's yeast, ox blood and animal liver.
2.	Calcium pangamate is not a vitamin and labelling it as vitamin B-15 would be at variance with the food and drug regulations.

June 6, 1980
Order Paper Questions
3.	There have been claims made to the effect that calcium pangamate can provide the body with extra energy but the department has not received credible evidence to support this claim.
4.	(a) Pangamic acid and its calcium salt have been promoted for the treatment of a variety of conditions including heart and blood vessel diseases, diabetes, cancer, liver disease, asthma, arthritis and alcoholism. Neither the acid nor its salt has been shown by adequate and properly-controlled studies to be safe or effective for treating these or any other disease.
(b) No medical or nutritional use for pangamic acid or its calcium salt has been established to the satisfaction of the department, and any promotion of that nature is not considered valid by the department.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many war veterans are presently hospitalized and considered the responsibility of the government?
2.	How many are in hospitals administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs and what was the cost in the last fiscal year for their care?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I.	On average 1,220.
2.	(a) On average 430.
(b) $7,007,439.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what was the number of (a) drug recalls recorded (b) drug recalls by dosage?


Monique Bégin: (a) and (b) See list "A"
Drug Recalls-By Dosage Form by Fiscal Year
Dosage Form	1975/76	1976/77	1977/78	1978/79	1979/Solid Oral	20	14	16	15	7Liquid Oral (also gels)	11	5	4	9	11Injectablcs	17	18	17	9	9Suppositories	-	1	1	I	9Opthalmics	1	2	3	2	1Topical	8	17	12	9	5Nasal	-	-	2	I	5Aerosol (inhalation)	-	-	-	1Total By Year	57	57	55	46	48


Mr. Herbert: What evidence has been obtained by the government, if any, to indicate the extent of counterfeiting of the shapes, colours and sizes of brand name drugs?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: No evidence has been obtained to indicate the extent of counterfeiting of the shapes, colours and sizes of brand name drugs.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Parks Canada or anyone acting on behalf of its subsidiaries, such as the Rideau Canal, purchase land, islands or any property in the County of Leeds in the past three years and, if so, in each case (a) what is the nature and location of the property and on what date was it purchased (b) what was the purchase price (c) what was the name of the vendor?
2.	What was the purpose of the purchase and what use is being or will be made of the property?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes. Since April 1977 the following lands have been purchased in the County of Leeds by Parks Canada:
Nature/Location	Authority/Date	Closing Date	(b) Purchase Price	(c) VendorPart Tar Island, Rideau Lake, and part Lot 10, Cone. 3 Twp. of South Burgess	T.B. Rec 762071 1/2/79	29/2/80	$300,000	Hester R. BrowneIsland 189, Rideau Lake, Twp. of South Burgess	T.B. Rec 763446 15/3/79	20/4/79	$197,000	Livingstone Holdings Ltd.Part Lots 7-9, 19-23, 30-34, 42, 43 and 44, Jones Falls, Rideau Canal, Twp. of South Crosby	Deputy Minister under Govt. Land Purchase Regs. 17/9/79	21/12/79	$ 62,500	Gerald P. Fischer and Gwendalene Fischer
June 6, 1980

2.	Purpose
* (i) To meet CORTS
Agreement objective of preserving open space in the CORTS corridor, by counteracting private commercial development through public acquisition of properties placed for sale on the open market.
(ii) Same as above
(iii) Same as above
CORTS: Canada-Ontario-Rideau-'
Present/Future Use
To retain property in natural condition although some potential for limited future boat-oriented facilities and recreation.
To retain property in natural condition although potential for future limited boat-oriented recreation facilities as well as some camping, picnic facilities and swimming.
Future proposals contemplate use of the lands for interpretation, parking, day use trails, recreation, open space and natural environment zones.
t-Severn


Mr. Clarke: 1.	For the fiscal year 1978-79, how many contracts were let by the Department of Justice for professional services, to persons who at any time within the past five years, had been employed in indeterminate positions under the Public Service Commission?
2.	How many contracts were (a) for less than one year (b) for one to two years (c) over two years?
3.	How many contracts were let outside the National Capital Region?
4.	What was the total cost of all such contracts?


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: 1. One.
2.	(a) I
(b)	None
(c)	None.
3.	None.
4.	$6,000.00.


Mr. Gass: Will there be additional licences issued for snow crab in the Atlantic provinces and, if so (a) how many (b) how will new entrants be selected?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: It is not the intention of the department to issue this year additional snow crab licences in the Atlantic provinces.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Small Businesses Loans Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: that Bill C-17, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate briefly in the debate on third reading of Bill C-17, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act. At the very beginning of my remarks, I want to apologize for the hon. Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) who had to go away. He is now in Fredericton to meet the representatives of the commission for the development of the capital region of New Brunswick and those of the chamber of commerce, while the parliamentary secretary (Mr. Ferguson) is on official duty in Toronto along with the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I feel however completely at ease, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this bill, particularly as it is a piece of legislation in which I am very interested, as much in fact as in the bill to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act to which I contributed last week, during the debate on second reading. This legislation comes under the responsibility of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) whose parliamentary secretary I am. Finally, 1 think small business is a very important sector of the Canadian economy; it employs a great many workers and provides a solid base for our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I looked at the contributions of my hon. colleagues in the debate on the second reading of this bill as well as their contributions in the standing committee and 1 want to thank them for their support for this measure, their constructive comments and the diligence with which they considered it so it could be brought back so rapidly to the House, and in view of the June 30 deadline, which is fast approaching, 1 hope third reading will go rather quickly.
As a general rule, the remarks by hon. members were most constructive and favourable to this bill which deals with the financing of small business and which is actually an effective,

June 6, 1980
Small Businesses Loans Act
low-cost measure, as the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) pointed out in his remarks. Last year we had losses of only 0.42 per cent. This is a legislation that supports financial institutions and provides an incentive for small business.
The fact still remains that the minister wanted to register and receive favourably the suggestions made by hon. members. Of course, since they do not relate directly to this measure and it is urgent to endorse these changes rapidly, they will have to be considered another time. Most of the suggestions do not relate directly to this measure but rather the legislation itself or again other legislation dealing with small business. Hon. members' suggestions will have to be examined in the context of the review of the funding problems of small business which should be completed within two years and is being carried out in co-operation with the Economic Council of Canada and the bankers' association.
Mr. Speaker, those are two over-all reviews of the funding programs for small business and the difficulties facing businesses at this time.

A very valuable suggestion was made by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), the former minister responsible for small business, to ensure a broad range of input in the consideration of this examination of the whole problem of small business. The minister has committed himself to this suggestion and so have I. I hope that small business, the department and those who are involved in this review will not only receive the recommendations or suggestions of the traditional advisers, such as officials of the department, the banks, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, but all those groups which have been involved in previous revisions of this legislation or policies that have been put forward in the past to help small business. I am sure that the suggestion of the hon. member for Capilano must include members of Parliament, and their input would be invaluable.
At the same time, many hon. members have spoken about the possibility of the act including working capital in small businesses. This is a complicated step but it is also a worth while one which could render great service to small business. This suggestion has been put forward by many hon. members who have contributed to this debate. Some have suggested that the amount of the loan be increased, but 1 would remind them that in 1977 the maximum amount was increased to $75,000. This has had an increasing effect on the total amount of loans made under the act.
The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) also referred to the possibility of relating loans to patent acquisition. In this present era of high technology this is something that could be considered. He also referred to the possibility of increasing the maximum amount of the gross income provision to make companies eligible under the act. At the present time the maximum is $1.5 million. He suggested it could be increased
to $2 million or $2.5 million and this, of course, would make more small businesses eligible. Hon. members might want to comment on this suggestion during the present debate.
Many other suggestions have been made and I hope all of them will be given very serious consideration during the comprehensive review of small business financing. It is imperative that this legislation receive third reading as quickly as possible as the present act expires on June 30. The ceiling of $600 million established by the act has probably been reached by this time, although I must say 1 have not checked on it this morning. I hope we can give this bill third reading today if possible.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose most hon. members are acquainted with the bill now under consideration which has just been reported from the standing committee without amendment. In short, the bill increases the maximum capacity of the legislation from $600 million to $675 million, as of July 1, 1977 to June 30, 1980 which will allow additional loans and make money available for other loans till June 30.
At the same time, the bill allows for a maximum increase in individual loans from $75,000 to $100,000 while the maximum amount of loans is increased to $850 million. In addition, the legislation is extended for two years. We know that usually such legislation is reviewed every three years. In the present case, the minister wanted it to be extended for two years only so that it would parallel as closely as possible the review undertaken by the department with the Economic Council of Canada and the Canadian Bankers' Association to consider the whole matter and the problems concerning the financing of small businesses. That review should be completed within two years.
There are two other points I consider rather important. First, the legislation goes back to where it belongs. It gives the responsibility back to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who has to answer for it, and at the same time it restates the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, jointly with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen), will have to share responsibility for setting the interest rate. In my opinion, the fact that the implementation of this legislation comes under the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is very significant because he is now the one who is doing a full review and preparing a comprehensive economic development policy for the country.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill I commend to all hon. members, a non-ambiguous bill, an explicit bill which draws support from all hon. members and from small businesses, and an urgent bill, and I hope our deliberations will be brief enough to allow us to pass it today.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my comments will not take long as I hope to see this bill passed
June 6, 1980

today. There are a couple of matters that I should like to raise that 1 believe to be important, however.
The problem is that everyone in our society has a different definition of small business, and for a moment 1 should like to speak about very small businesses. Given the regulations which govern the making and guaranteeing of loans, it is difficult for many small businesses to find their way through the muddle.
For a lot of them, and for one in particular that I have in mind, it appears that if they can qualify for assistance them they do not really need it. So much is required by way of collateral and guarantee that it is virtually impossible for many very small businesses, particularly in the early stages of their endeavour, to take advantage of the program.
1 should like to suggest that particular attention be paid in the comprehensive review of small businesses to the unique problems of the very small businessman-the one who may have only one or two employees and is in the process of developing the business. All the paper work and the time involved in taking advantage of a program such as this one or of the small business development bond-if and when it becomes available-will prevent a great many people from getting the money when they need it. From speaking to a number of small business people in my community, I know they regard all this red tape and paper work as a stumbling block to their efforts.
I hope the review will cover not only those high technology small businesses-which are really more of medium size-but that the role of the very, very small business will be recognized. Some of these employ only two or three people either full or part time but need small sums of money to expand or indeed to support them through a downturn in the economy such as we are now experiencing.
In the discussion of another act I pointed out that the majority of small business people, particularly in the retail business, depend upon a buoyant economy. Whatever action we take will be of little value to them unless they can convince those who make judgments about the potential of their business that the economy is sufficiently buoyant that they will be able to repay the loan. At the moment many small business people find it difficult to see a rosy picture of what the future holds and, consequently, it is difficult to justify the expense of maintaining their competitive position.
In addition, if we could see the general direction that the government intends to take with the small business development bond legislation, and if we could see in the much larger area the intention of the government with regard to renewing the purchasing power of the general population so that people can buy what the small businessman legitimately attempts to sell, then 1 think a lot of people in small business would feel much more comfortable about their future and their place in future economic development.
With respect to regulations, I ask that they be made simple and written in language that the average person can understand, to the extent that is possible. I ask that these regulations
Small Businesses Loans Act
not be written for lawyers because once the small business person is given the documents he will then have to spend half of what he gets on obtaining a legal opinion as to whether or not he is entitled to what is offered. As the regulations are written, 1 ask that they be written in language that we all use.
1 ask the government to attempt to find a way so that the average, reasonably educated person will be able to pick them up, read them and be able to answer the questions. That has to be one of the biggest problems confronting the small business person.
Small business people get frustrated with legalese as well as with the interminable number of documents that have to be filled out. And what about the time taken away from their business? In most of the cases I am thinking about, time taken away from their business means that they have to find someone else to fill that time, because they are not managing the business, they are running the business. They are part of the business and they are there ten hours a day or more every day. Therefore, if we require that a great deal of time is taken away from small business people, then that is money lost and it does not help them one bit.
With those things in mind, I too would like to see the bill passed. I hope that it will be accepted by the money lending institutions in the way that it must. I hope that they will move swiftly so that anyone who is able to take advantage of the legislation will, in fact, be able to get that financial assistance in time to offset the difficulties that may confront them during this fiscal year.


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite fascinated at the quiet, very able articulation of the hon. member for Hamilton-Mountain (Mr. Deans), a member of the New Democratic Party who has just urged that third reading of this bill pass in a hurry and that the government get on with the implementation of the bill. I find the fascination of the New Democratic Party within the last year or two and within the provinces of Canada with the world of small business, which is really the world of the strong individual, strange. Since the New Democratic Party has found out that small business makes up some 66 per cent of the work force, 1 Find its increasing interest is indeed strange outside of the political need for paying attention to that community.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) stood in the House today on a question of privilege and one of the NDP members spoke to the emphasis which they place on taxation against the wealth-creating sector and the wealth-creating individuals of the country. They want an egalitarian state and they want to collectivize us. Yet they pay this quiet, beautiful, magnificent attention to a bill that serves individuals and the small business community. I say to them that they are on both sides of the fence.


Ian Deans: I disagree. If you listen and address yourself to the question before you-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It waxes strange, Mr. Speaker, that their total attention these days is on the matter of taxation and on
1846

June 6, 1980
Small Businesses Loans Act
the distribution of wealth. If they want to distribute wealth and do the right thing for those people at or below the poverty level, we will have to direct the attention of this House, and of all members of this House, to the creation of wealth. With the creation of wealth we will address the distribution problem.
I stand here and debate with the hon. member because I do not believe that we can address the distribution problems in the country by attacking wealth creation. The small and medium enterprise business sector is a wealth-creating sector of major importance to the quality of life in this country. That is the reason I wax strange on the comments made by the hon. member for Hamilton-Mountain.
On the other hand, last evening when we were dealing with Bill C-28, which is a bill to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, I was fascinated by the remarks made by, and I pay great compliment to, the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), a member of the New Democratic Party. His address was eloquent, his sincerity was in place, he had a great grasp of the industry on the coast and of its needs, and I compliment him for his contribution to the debate on Bill C-28.
I want to return now to the subject of Bill C-I7, third reading of which was introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel). We have had a good debate on Bill C-17, and much of the debate on Bill C-20, which is to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act, has overlapped it. We had a good discussion with the minister and his staff in committee. However, there are a few points that I think are pertinent to interject into third reading debate.
The parliamentary secretary paid compliment to a suggestion I made in that the debate and forum for inputs to the over-all financial review that we are talking about and anxiously waiting for are important. All of these bills, such as Bill C-28 and Bill C-17, are bills that amend different patchwork programs of need within the Canadian economy and community. These are going to get us into trouble. All we are doing is running after amendments to take care of the inflation component within our society and allow a measure of catch-up in these different programs.
The review which the minister has under way should take into effect all of these bills and give us an over-all program. As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said in committee, we should project ahead for 25 years the financial needs of the Canadian economy rather than spending all of this time amending bills just to take care of the inflation component that has eroded the purchasing power and capital of the country. The review is important. In committee we were seeking to have that review opened up.
We can either go the way they have in the United States by putting in a small business act where we create a magnificent plethora of regulations, rules, administration, Senate and parliamentary committees, and we heap more and more regulations on to that wealth-creating community with very little activity. Or, we can perhaps start working toward and calling
for a standing committee of the House of Commons for the small and medium enterprise business sector, where the advocacy role of the small business secretariat and the minister for small business can have a forum to discuss all of the legislation that comes into this House affecting positively or negatively that sector. That would strengthen immeasurably the advocacy role of the secretariat and the function of the minister, who represents the economic wealth-creating community in Canada.
At the moment we have a dedicated secretariat and we have a minister of state. But other ministers have more power to deliver the cookies and the goodies than the minister of state. He is really a eunuch within the delivery system. The small business community in Canada needs a forum in which its needs, aspirations and problems can be discussed. It needs a forum to protect it from the imposition of legislation coming down from other departments and ministries.
I suggest once again in this third reading debate that we give serious consideration to the creation of a standing committee of the House of Commons responsible for matters pertaining to the small and medium enterprise sector of Canada. It would be a vehicle that the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) and the secretariat serving that minister of state could staff as the secretariat of that committee. I think we should strengthen the advocacy role and be an open part of deliberations such as the whole study of financial needs of that sector.
My colleague the hon. member for Edmonton West had a suggestion that is also worthy of consideration. The member of Parliament, you and I, Mr. Speaker, are not technicians in all aspects of expertise within the economic community or within the social community. We need a forum or vehicle whereby the experts of the country can deal one with the other and make reports. Those reports are very valuable to the members of the House of Commons who are representing the emotional level of their constituency in the over-all country of Canada.
The hon. member for Edmonton West said that we need a royal commission as the vehicle for involvement in that study. He and I are both afraid that that financial review in Canada is going to be limited to the experts within the civil service, the Canadian Bankers' Association, which is another body that is dealing in expertise in a narrow field in terms of society at large, and the Economic Council of Canada, all bodies of absolute experts. These experts could in a royal commission that is open to the public broaden the inputs and the audiovisual portion of those inputs so that, when the matter comes to a parliamentary committee or to parliamentarians who are not experts in any one specific field, we judge as a jury.
If we are going to make Parliament work, which we are going to have to do to build a better Canadian community and society, we have to start taking on more the jury function as members of Parliament and strengthen our standing committees so that members, representing the emotional level of the land, can meet the experts in those committees.
June 6, 1980

Maybe we are not equipped to handle the experts directly. Maybe we need to be able to staff ourselves so that the right questions can be asked and much of the time that is lost in our deliberations can be cut down. We could then have very valuable inputs to our record of proceedings.
The review is a very important one. It involves all of these amendments we are now passing, such as Bill C-28 and Bill C-l 7. All of these are taking care of inflation. What we need is a vehicle whereby this automatically takes place so that we know what our needs are, that we have a vision of 25 years down the road in terms of our economy, the financial management of our monetary system and our fiscal system serving that community.
It was requested that working capital be part of the Small Businesses Loans Act. In committee the minister pointed out that was probably too complicated a subject and had a degree of risk that was not in the present guarantee structure of the Small Businesses Loans Act. I will buy that, but working capital and the need to increase the working capital of the small and medium enterprise sector of Canada is an aspect that needs attention.
If we are going to move on wealth creation and the creation of stable jobs, we are going to have to assess the degree of risk that is involved in assisting the community with venture capital, working capital and the guarantees that we have in our program. Part of this review, and I come back to it, is that we should start to take a really solid, hard look at what we are getting into when we say we are going to guarantee this and guarantee that.
We know in the Small Businesses Loans Act that guarantees are only costing 0.42 per cent of the amount outstanding. That might be a $3 million cost to the treasury; 1 have not done the arithmetic on that. We also learned in committee that there is no risk in a Small Businesses Loans Act guaranteed loan to a large lending institution. It is pooled up and there is no risk to them. Any loss is in a pool and they pretty well have a 100 per cent guarantee of lending under this act.
It is not just guarantees here, guarantees in the fishing sector, and so on and so forth. We are now into guaranteeing $200 million in loans for companies like Chrysler. True enough, there is a political need and demand for attention in that area, but have we really got the implications of guarantees figured out? No, sir, we have not. We create these contingent liabilities and we do not know what burden we are creating for tomorrow's taxpayer, our children today. All that is a very important aspect of this review.
Guarantees have contingent liabilities to the balance sheet of Canada, to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to the cash flow. If something like a $200 million guarantee to an organization like Chrysler fails, what will that affect in the way of programs and the delivery of programs into the future? Everybody in this House knows that about 80 per cent of our cash flow is delivering statutory programs. It is very difficult to cut back and retrench out of the remaining 20 per cent of discretionary spending that we have. Where is that pressure coming from? What reserves are we setting aside for these guaran-
Farm Improvement Loans Act
tees? If we are going to be responsible members and a responsible House, we should start calling for an immediate review, probably by experts. It should be part of a royal commission examining this whole area of community need.
There is little further 1 want to say on this bill. We want the bill to go through. We want to assure the House that we consider it only temporary in nature. It is only more patchwork on the quilt. We would like to examine the design of the quilt. We would like to bring forward the thrust, emphasis and visibility on the review that the Minister of State for Small Businesses and the parliamentary secretary spoke about during the debates on the FBDB bill and on the Small Businesses Loans Act bill. If this House is to function and serve the wealth-creating community, it is essential that the design of that economic quilt receive our serious consideration and attention.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: For the convenience of members, I will ask the table to indicate the order of business for two o'clock and then call it one o'clock.


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-27, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When we rose at one o'clock, the House was about to give consideration to Bill C-27.



Robert Phillip Kaplan: that Bill C-27, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, as

June 6, 1980
Farm Improvement Loans Act
reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Phillip Kaplan: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words during the third reading debate of this bill and ask hon. members to support Bill C-27, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
As we all know, this act expires on June 30 and we would deprive Canadian farmers of an important and well-appreciated service if we did not pass this amendment today. Mr. Speaker, the bill aims at providing for Canadian farmers better access to short and medium-term credit to improve and develop their business and to improve their living conditions.
Today, we are asking the House to re-establish this act for a period of three years. Since its introduction in 1945, the Farm Improvement Loans Act has been extended several times. In the present situation, it is very important to provide better credit for our businesses, especially in the agricultural sector, and we are also proposing to increase the maximum amount of the loans outstanding to a farmer by increasing from $75,000 to $100,000 the amount of loans granted for land condition improvements. Mr. Speaker, the second amendment simply takes into account the increasing costs of agricultural production, such as machinery, fuel, fertilizes, pesticides, labour and so on.
The Farm Improvement Loans Act enables the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to guarantee term loans granted to farmers by chartered banks and other designated lenders, such as credit unions and caisses populaires, for various farm improvements which include, of course, the purchase of farm implements, machinery and material, land clearing and plowing, the installation of irrigation systems, the construction or repair of fences, drainage works, the building, repair or conversion of farm buildings, the purchase of cattle or additional land and major repairs to or the restoration of machinery and tools.
At the present time, the federal government is greatly interested in farm financing through two major instruments, the Farm Credit Corporation which deals with long-term mortgage financing under the Farm Credit Act and which grants medium-term loans to farm syndicates under the provisions of the Farm Syndicates Credit Act, and the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which protects designated lenders against any loss incurred because of medium-term loans.
Under the act, Mr. Speaker, the interest rate that lending institutions can charge farmers cannot exceed their prime rate plus one per cent. May I recall that these institutions must
assure and also ensure the solvency of borrowers, as in the case of any other type of loan. In view of this, and since agriculture is one of the areas where investments are safest, the Farm Improvement Loans Act is not very costly to the Canadian government. Indeed, in 1977 the cost was less than $190,000 to the government, increasing to $289,000 in 1978 and declining to $222,000 last year. This is very little compared to the total loans extended during the same years $132 million in 1977, $225 million in 1978 and $262 million last year. These figures show the real cost to the government of the huge investments made possible by the act. I am thinking of the increased productivity made possible to farming by these investments, and the benefits for the Canadian economy as a whole. Mr. Speaker, all these points were made in support of amendments when the legislation was introduced, again on second reading and when it was discussed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The points made against the bill seem rather minuscule and weak when one looks at the numerous benefits of Bill C-27 for Canadian agriculture. Mr. Speaker, during the next decade, Canadian farmers will have an increasing need of short and long-term farm financing, and I feel the federal government has a duty, through the Department of Agriculture, to implement acts promoting the development and improvement of our Canadian agriculture.
During the coming decade, certainly there will be much more emphasis on the food industry than any other, even energy. So many countries are still underfed, while in Canada we have the land, the farming potential and the skilled farmers needed. Bill C-27 is one piece of the legislation under which they can get short and long-term financing. I therefore urge every member to support the amendments to ensure the prosperity of our agriculture and economy, and in turn the wellbeing of all farmers throughout Canada.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to indicate that the official opposition is willing and prepared to see this bill passed as quickly as possible and become the law of the land.
I would only add that during the second reading debate four of our speakers made some very appropriate comments on the bill, but they were generally supportive of the bill. It is my understanding that the bill cleared the standing committee yesterday morning, and now we would be quite happy to see it passed by the House as quickly as possible.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we too will not delay the passage of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I would like to make a couple of brief comments about the bill, about the procedure and some of the discussions which went on in committee, so that the House will be aware of what took place there.
June 6, 1980

It was my position in committee that the current Farm Improvement Loans Act should have been amended. As the parliamentary secretary has pointed out, the act is available to farmers for the purchase of farm machinery, for the purchase of breeding stock, for the purchase of building and for the purchase of land on a medium-term basis.
Over the course of the life of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, it has been reintroduced at three year intervals and various amendments and improvements have been made to it. The original purpose of the act was to provide loans only for the purchase of farm machinery, but then other items were added. It was only in the last two or three amendments to the act that land was included under the act.
There was a time when the act was amended to allow for major repairs to farm machinery, and now we can also make major repairs to farm buildings. So the act is not just used for the purchase of capital goods by farmers but is also being used, to some extent, for the refurbishing of farms, and it now comes very close to supplying a form of operating credit. If your tractor breaks down and you have a large bill to pay, you can take out a farm improvement loan to have it repaired. Similarly, you can get the loan if a windstorm hits a building.
The amendment which I proposed was ruled out of order as one for an opposition member to present. It was considered to be one that the government should more properly introduce. I am a little disappointed that the government did not see fit to do so. It would not have cost any more by way of increasing the amount of guarantees beyond the budget which was already allocated. We were told in committee that the current guarantees are available on a three-year period up to a limit of $1,550 million. We were also told that that limit had never been approached. In the last three-year period we were told that the maximum reached was a ceiling of about $750 million. So we did not quite use half of the allotted funds that were already there. It would not have required an additional amount of global guarantees, so that the amendment would have probably fitted within the funding that the government had indicated it was prepared to allocate.
The amendment would have allowed, in addition to repairs and improvements to farm machinery and buildings, the repair and improvement, if you like, of the farmer's soil and of his breeding stock by way of artificial insemination services, the purchase of fertilizer, herbicides, seed and nursery stock-the kind of things which are very important for the improvement of farms.
In the general mind of the public, I think there is a conception that, because we are dealing with something like farm land, we are dealing with a so-called renewable resource. But if we do r.ot have any funds or do not make certain that there are inputs into that land, the so-called renewable resource will soon die off. I am aware of some soil studies on the prairies which were done by Dr. Rennie of the University of Saskatchewan. They show that the fertility of prairie soils on the average is now approximately half what it was only 60
Safe Containers Act
or 70 years ago. Without some firm programs for farms and assistance for financing such programs to rotate crops and use fertilizers judiciously, the results of the renewable resource to the economy of the country will gradually wind down.
It is important that these loans be allowed for some of the operating expenses incurred by farmers each year, particularly in years such as the one we have just come through where interest rates were quite high and some regions of the country suffered. 1 am thinking of the potato areas in the maritimes which have suffered three bad marketing years and were having great difficulty financing the seeding of the current crop. We think such guarantees would allow the banks to make further funding available to farmers for seed and fertilizer.
That was the rationale behind the proposal. We are sorry the government did not choose to include it in the amendments. However, we were pleased to hear from the director of the Farm Improvement Loans Act that a study of the whole farm credit field will be put in place. We were not told how it was to be conducted, whether it would be a public inquiry. I ask the parliamentary secretary to use his influence to see that farm groups and farmers have some input into such an inquiry. It is high time that the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Farm Credit Corporation Act and the acts where government has involved itself in the supply of farm credit be reviewed, updated and become more pertinent to the real needs of today's agriculture.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[ Translation]


SAFE CONTAINERS CONVENTION ACT
Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill C-21, to implement the International Convention for Safe Containers, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jean-Luc Pepin: that the bill be read the third time and do
pass.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of the committee that reviewed this bill. It has been brought to the House and almost to completion on four occasions. This is the fourth time it has come before the House. Through this process, it has been duly refined and all the objections seem to have been met. I had indication from both opposition parties that they concurred in this bill. It will bring about the possibility of ratifying the international convention that should be concluded before September, 1982.

June 6, 1980
Safe Containers Act
Until this bill is passed, we do not have a vehicle to ratify that international convention. The bill will facilitate the transport of Canadian containerized cargo through application in Canada of internationally accepted standards of container safety. Passage of the bill will be received positively by the industry that will be directly affected by the provisions of the convention. 1 would urge all members of the House to support the bill.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, one area that has concerned me for some time is relatively new in terms of hazardous cargo. Of late we have been seeing more and more in the press and in other places about the problems which are now confronting many municipalities regarding liquid industrial waste, the mixing of liquid industrial waste, and its transportation. 1 have noted with some alarm that the containers presently used both for storage and transportation really were not designed for many of the liquids that are mixed together and therefore become something other than what they were in the first place.
1 should like to suggest that in the processes *we set up for inspection we pay particular attention to that area, both in terms of storage and transportation. I am sure we have all read of the recent Love Canal incident in Buffalo, New York, where a lack of knowledge and a consequent lack of concern resulted in the dumping of hazardous materials which turned out to be injurious to health. I would not want us to use the practice that is presently carried out of simple tanker carriers for transporting liquid industrial waste which heretofore were used for any other number of less noxious, less hazardous substances.
When the minister and the ministry undertake a review and establish the standards of the convention, they must pay particular attention to that extremely difficult, somewhat new and very hazardous area. They must ensure that we do not have the kinds of things happening in this country which have been happening for the last number of years, where carriers simply have allowed, either inadvertently or sometimes, I suspect, on purpose, the leakage of waste to become a hazard all over the countryside.
Perhaps a nod from the minister would either verify or deny my understanding that this legislation is not retroactive and therefore not applicable to existing carriers. Is it or is it not retroactive?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: It is not retroactive.


Ian Deans: It is not retroactive; that is what I thought. Therefore, I would like to suggest that, because this is an extremely difficult area and will be more and more the subject of debate both here and in other houses across the country, we take a serious look at the methods used for transporting liquid industrial wastes at this time. We should attempt to find a way
to bring into conformity with this legislation, which is intended to protect the public, guarantees that these carriers of liquid industrial wastes are appropriately inspected, and make sure that the vehicles used are up to the standards of the convention over a period of time. As a result, we will not have people who are presently in the business circumventing the protection we hope to provide by using vehicles and tankers that were manufactured prior to the implementation of this act, thereby continuing a practice that has been extremely hazardous in a number of areas across the country.
As we review how this legislation will be applied, we should look carefully at the methods of storing these selfsame wastes. For most of us there is a degree of apprehension and anxiety that develops when we are not fully aware of what happens when certain industrial wastes, now being developed on a day by day basis for industrial purposes, react on being subsequently mixed within holding tanks; because what can emerge can be an entirely different substance with a considerably greater impact.
I would, therefore, say to the minister that with the passage of this bill we are taking some steps forward. There is yet a vast area of concern that has not been dealt with in this bill, and that ought to be addressed by the House of Commons in the very near future.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to speak very briefly on this bill. We had an interesting discussion in the committee earlier this week on Bill C-21, at which time I raised the issue of the transportation of chemicals on passenger aircraft. The parliamentary secretary and his officials informed members of the committee that cabin crews have access to cargoes so that if they detect fumes or smoke coming from the cargo they can check it. However, we were not given a satisfactory explanation of how the crew can gain access to cargo holds, and the officials undertook to obtain more information.
Would the minister also have his officials determine how Air Canada, CP Air or any other airline in Canada can determine what chemicals are actually in containers? There have been situations in the United States and Canada where shippers have put wrong labels on containers, for whatever reason-perhaps to speed up the shipment or get a shipment on a passenger jet instead of a cargo aircraft. Certain chemicals can be shipped by cargo planes only, while other less dangerous substances can be shipped on passenger jets. How do these people determine what actually is in these containers? Do they open a certain number of them to see that the content is that which in fact is on the label, or do they go strictly by what it says on the label?
I ask this because a number of years ago there was a fatal crash of a Pan American World Airways cargo jet at Boston. The aircraft was carrying half a dozen different chemicals, some of which leaked into the sawdust in the box which caught
June 6, 1980

fire. The aircraft crashed killing the three crew members. The unfortunate thing in this accident was that while the crew was trying to track down where the smoke was coming from, the aircraft was flying over a series of airports, and had the aircraft landed at the first airport at the first sign of smoke probably the plane and the crew would have been saved. One can see how important it is that we know what is contained in the shipments, particularly when chemicals are involved.
i would ask the minister to have his officials determine whether a certain number of packages are opened to check the contents or to determine that the chemical contained therein conforms with what is on the label, and will his officials also find out just how the crews of these aircraft can gain access to the cargo hold on passenger jet aircraft?


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word or two about this proposed dangerous products act. One of the main areas with which I am concerned has regard to interprovincial traffic when dangerous products are being hauled from one province to another. We must consider this aspect very carefully as it is of concern to many provincial governments and other people, particularly in view of the fact that the regulations in each province may differ. This bill should establish responsibility in respect of dangerous products moving from one province to another.
One radical change in the bill is its departure from the normal approach in respect of the establishment of responsibility after proof of negligence. If negligence is proven, then responsibility should certainly be established. Responsibility should not simply be taken for granted because there was negligence on the part of certain individuals.
Another item that should be carefully considered by the committee is the method of haulage by trucks. Truck drivers have to assume a great deal of responsibility when they go out to pick up their loads. In many cases it is virtually impossible for those drivers to open every package to determine what they contain. For this reason it is a little unfair to hold the truck driver responsible for everything he is hauling on his truck. How we can overcome this difficulty I do not know. If everyone was absolutely honest the difficulty would not exist. However, when a truck is carrying a quarter load for one shipper, and eighth load for another, and a third for another, it is virtually impossible for the trucker to know what he is actually carrying. Many of these companies must pick up on that basis in order to have a full load moving across the country. The truck driver does not pack the goods or open the packages, and to do so would be an impossible job.
I hope this matter can be discussed in some detail at the committee stage in order that we can avoid placing an unfair burden on the many truck drivers who are excellent workmen, but who may unknowingly be hauling something dangerous. I know there is a legal maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but, by the same token, there has to be some fairness exercised in placing the responsibility.
Safe Containers Act
Another matter of importance is the use of safety devices. This is a subject that came to light in the investigation of the Mississauga mishap. There are safety devices that indicate what is happening inside a wheel, an axle and so on. Truckers must, under provincial laws, have their trucks checked regularly. There should be a similar requirement for trains to make sure that railways are not unduly putting the lives of many people at risk.
This bill does not cover another aspect which I think is very relevant, and that is measures to avoid accidents in the first place. What I have in mind is what could be done on railway lines during relocation. I do not think any reasonable person would suggest that we embark on a multibillion dollar program to replace every railway line passing through a populated centre. The board of transport commissioners should take the responsibility of not permitting the rebuilding of railway lines in areas where they could be a hazard. What is happening now in many centres is that people want the lines moved, and that is when it should be put in a safe place away from populated areas. Then if an explosion occurs nobody will be killed.
1 have referred in this House before to the illustration of what happened with the CPR in the town of Lake Louise. The people there strongly objected to the twinning of a rail line within that village. The CPR could have built the other line in a safer place away from the village, but as it is now, if there is a mishap in Lake Louise during the summer, when the town is full of tourists, thousands of people could be hurt. This line could have been located outside the town at very little extra expense. That expense would be nothing compared to the costs that would be incurred if there were a mishap in the centre of the village and they then had to relocate the line.
A similar type of mishap occurred in Stirling about three or four years ago, but we were lucky there, as we were in Mississauga. Through the tremendous efforts of the local citizens, RCMP, firemen and so on everyone was moved and no lives were lost. One of these days, if we do not begin watching carefully where these lines are placed, we will not be so lucky and a number of people will be hurt. Then there will be a real holler. I would much rather holler now. If the board of transport commissioners, the group which controls matters concerning rail lines, would use every day, common horse sense and not say yes to everything which the railways ask for, it would help us avoid many of these problems right now.
Not only myself but a number of other people appealed to the board of transport commissioners not to allow the twinning of that CPR line in Lake Louise. Although the line was essential, we did not want it to go through the village. But our pleas fell on deaf ears. To my notion, there was no proper reason given by the board as to why it agreed to the recommendations of the CPR. If there is a mishap and someone is killed, the blood will be squarely on the skirts of the board of transport commissioners which could have ordered that the other, safer route be taken.

June 6, 1980
Safe Containers Act
This is something which is happening all across the country. I would plead with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to use whatever authority he has with the board of transport commissioners to ensure that it will try to prevent accidents from occurring by foreseeing the possible causes. Again, I emphasize that nobody is asking for the relocation of every rail line across this country, but just that when these lines are relocated they be put in a safe place where any errors will not endanger human life.
There are some other points with regard to this bill which 1 feel are very important. I hope to raise them before the committee if at all possible.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be talking on this bill today and on the other bill which we are currently dealing with in committee, the transportation of dangerous goods bill. Coming as 1 do from Mississauga, these are topics which affect us and with which we have had some experience. I am quite interested in the passage of these bills and very encouraged by their provisions.
I have had the opportunity of listening to the officials of the department in committee. This particular bill deals with the standards concerning containers as they affect the transport of goods across international boundaries. I am pleased that we have been able to increase the quality of our standards through the ratification of this international convention.
In Mississauga we found that the containers themselves were a vital part of the accident. Double-walled train cars did not explode, despite the fact that they were subject to enormous stress and enormous heat in that accident.
It would probably help hon. members present if they knew exactly what went on in that accident. As the train began to go off the track, an explosion occurred instantaneously. Within a minute, a second explosion occurred sending a ball of fire 40 storeys high. A similar explosion occurred within an hour. The end of one of the train cars blew off and the car travelled along the ground 2,200 feet, shooting fire out of its back. Throughout the following week as the propane and chlorine burned, one tank car sat in the middle of the debris and the heat without exploding or leaking. At the end of the week a truck emptied out the liquid inside the car, and the fire department determined that it was a double-walled tanker car. Other double-walled cars experienced fractures and slow leaks, but none exploded.
I was most encouraged to hear from the minister's officials while in committee that railroads are now phasing in the use of this type of car. I am further encouraged by the fact that the railroads, truck carriers and air carriers will be forced to face increased responsibility for inspection. They will be required to justify much more firmly their behaviour when such accidents occur.
I am concerned over the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway does not want to take on that kind of responsibility, as was stated by its representatives before the Grange inquiry in Mississauga. Basically, the railroad is running the same train
through Mississauga every night as it was running last fall. The railroad's officials have said repeatedly to Mr. Justice Grange that they have not changed their procedures and that they do not intend to do so.
I asked the fire chief of Mississauga about the ramifications of the decision of CPR. He indicated that any individual living within 2,500 feet of either side of the CPR line was vulnerable in the event of another accident. In Mississauga 40,000 people live that close to that track. I encourage the CPR to take its responsibilities more seriously and to begin to introduce some fundamental and inexpensive safety procedures in the operations of its trains. I refer to such procedures as hot-box detectors, rear view mirrors and slower inspection procedures.
I am encouraged to see in this new legislation that more responsibility is being placed on the carrier in the area of inspection. I hope that the railroad in Mississauga will not wait until this legislation is passed before it takes up its responsibility.
Those are the points which I wanted to raise with regard to this legislation. We were very fortunate in Mississauga. We went through not one miracle but two miracles. The first miracle happened in the first minute of the accident when the train went off the track into an empty field. There were only industrial buildings within 2,500 feet of that field. There were no homes nor congested construction going on. There were plenty of fire hydrants and open roads for access by the rescrue and prevention equipment. That was the first miracle.
The second miracle was that out of the 250,000 people evacuated, nobody was hurt. The crime rate in the area actually dropped. We owe a great deal to many local officials, such as the mayor, the fire department and the police department, for their diligent efforts during that week. Had they been armed with some of the provisions in the new regulations under this legislation, they would have been able to perform their duties even more easily.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


David Michael Collenette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the clerk said and I am sorry that there is some confusion this afternoon. All hon. members have co-operated and now we are desperately trying to find out what will be the next item of business before four o'clock. It was our intention to go on with Bill S-6, to amend the Two-Price Wheat Act. I have been trying to locate the former postmaster general so that we could deal with Bill S-4. I do not know the propriety of asking for a couple of moments' grace in order to speak to him. Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would comment on the propriety of this. If we do move to Bill S-4 I believe that there may be a disposition to pass it. We could then move to Bill S-6 and that would take us to four o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, rather than commenting on the proprieties, may I comment on the probabilities. If the hon.
June 6, 1980

member for Vancouver South were here I think we could proceed with Bill S-4. I also suspect that it would take only ten or 15 minutes to deal with that bill. Perhaps we could proceed with Bill S-6 now and adjourn it at 3.45 p.m. so that Bill S-4 could be dealt with this afternoon. It is a bad bill but it has to be considered.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre gets us out of hot water. I thank him very much for that suggestion.
I understand there is no disposition to let Bill S-6 go through today. If we could proceed with it now, then we could halt debate on second reading at 3.45, immediately dispose of Bill S-4 through all stages, then go on to private members' hour. I wonder if that is agreeable to the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is moved by the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council that the next order of business will be Bill S-6, that debate will cease on Bill S-6 at 3.45 p.m.-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That the debate be adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I apologize-that the debate will be adjourned, whereupon Bill S-4 will be taken under consideration. Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Agreed and so ordered.


TWO-PRICE WHEAT ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Jean-Luc 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. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, as I was not aware this bill was coming up so soon I had to put a few notes together rather hastily.
This is a matter of concern to farmers in western Canada. The act was repealed some time ago, although it is still on the books. I suppose, therefore, that if a farmer really wanted to contest it in the courts he would have a good basis for doing so.
The basic purpose of the measure was to establish two prices for wheat. If the price was below $5 per bushel the government would pay a subsidy to bring the price up to $5 per bushel for red wheat. In contrast, millers would pay $3.25. This would ensure consumers in this country of a reasonable price for baked goods and bread.
In November, 1978, the Liberal government of that day decided not to pay the subsidy any longer but the act was not repealed. Subsequent governments agreed that there should be
Two-Price Wheat Act
two-price wheat and there has been a disposition to bring in new regulations to set the limits at $5 and $7 per bushel under the Wheat Board Act.
The only problem we see is that this bill will not be proclaimed until August 1 this year. In effect, the government proposes to write off the last crop year. Consequently, farmers will not have the advantage of the maximum and minimum for two-price wheat.
We are also concerned about the flexibility of these prices. Most western farmers believe that they have been subsidizing the consumers of this nation for a long time, as the world price of wheat has been well above the maximum set in the old bill. As we all know, farmers are not in a position to subsidize consumers. Because of the high cost of production and the price they are paid for grains, they are having trouble balancing their books. For these reasons, many western producers of bread wheat have been very concerned about the limits established in that bill.
The new limits were set out in a press release issued by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). There is no problem with the lower limit as it appears that wheat is selling today at approximately $5.50 per bushel. The price has risen above the upper limit, however, which really results in the farmers paying a subsidy to consumers. Our concern, therefore, is not with the lower limit established by the Minister of Agriculture, but with the upper limit. We would have more confidence in the bill if there was some flexibility in the upper limit.
I realize that the bill provides some ability to be flexible in the upper limit from time to time, but governments are notoriously slow in dealing with flexibility.
What this bill will do, in effect, is to make legal something that has been going on for some time. Basically, this party has no difficulty with that part of it. We have two problems with the bill which have already been put on record. When the bill moves to committee we would like to deal with the problem of missing the subsidy for a crop year. We would also like to deal with the upper limit and ensure some flexibility.
The price of wheat must be thoroughly discussed by the government and the leaders of farm communities in the country. For some time I have felt that there should be a minimum price for wheat on the international market. This has been recognized upon occasion and ignored at other times. Last summer I spoke with my American counterparts in Calgary and they were open to discussion being resumed in this area. 1 think part of that has been because many cartels have been established in this world respecting certain commodities. Canada and the United States probably ship in the neighbourhood of 70 per cent of the world's wheat to other countries. Canada and the United States should get together to establish a floor price for wheat below which we would not sell. That should be based on the cost of production plus what is considered a reasonable profit for farmers so that farmers can have a standard of living acceptable in this nation. That topic was discussed again just last weekend at a recent Canada-U.S. meeting in San Diego.
1854

June 6, 1980
Two-Price Wheat Act
1 understand that there is disposition among wheat producers who were at that meeting and our members of Parliament to get together in the next month and a half, and as members of a House of Commons discuss whether there is a possibility of coming to some agreement. We could then take it to our ministers and they could take it to their administration in the United States.
For many years over the past decade we have been selling grains in the international market below the cost of production to farmers. Farmers have been living on such things as depreciation, good research that our agricultural research stations are capable of putting out, and tremendous economies within their own farms and businesses. But this cannot go on forever. Farms are growing larger and costs of production are rising very rapidly in western Canada. It is becoming more and more difficult for farms of any size to continue to sell their products below the cost of production.
When I looked at my fertilizer bill this year, I was astonished at the increase in price. Because of the difference in the Canadian and American dollar, the standard inflation costs of employment in the manufacturing plants, it is becoming virtually impossible for small farmers now to re-equip themselves to go on into the 1980s and 1990s with the present price of grain. New equipment is expensive.
About three years ago I did a study. I compared the price of grain with the price of grain in the 1930s and 1940s. If one bases the dollar at the 1965 level, we find that farmers are really getting less for their wheat and barley today by quite a bit than they were at that time based on costs of production. The only way they have been able to survive is because tens of thousands have been driven off the land. Farms have become larger, more efficient, and farmers have used the basis of chemicals and fertilizers to increase production per acre in order to stay alive. 1 am not sure how much longer that situation can go on. If we continue on with our present policies we will continue to drive more farmers off their lands. Eventually we will have very large integrated units producing the food for this nation. I can assure the minister that the price will go up then because farmers will not continue to produce below the cost of production, as many of them have done in the past.
It is imperative for us to attempt again to negotiate with the U.S. first. Hopefully we can then later on bring into the discussions Argentina and Australia to attempt to establish a price below which no country would sell. That price would be based on costs of production.
No farmer is asking that we use this as a cartel to rip off other nations. AH we are saying is that we want a fair price for our labour and for the costs of producing food in this nation. What this bill is doing, and has been doing for a long time, is subsidizing the consumer in Canada for cheap red wheat. We should draw our attention to other markets as well.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It does both. It protects both the producer and the consumer.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: If we cannot work out this kind of an agreement with other countries, then surely we have an obligation in this country to set a price two or three months before the crop year, based on the cost of production that would, in effect, allow our producers to make the proper decisions about the crops they should grow. We are capable of doing this. We have found this year that the wheat board is running out of barley to meet its obligations under the contracts it has sold because the right signals were not given to our farmers a year or two ago. In fact, we gave them wrong signals. We put a quota on the off board grain which scared farmers away from producing feed grains.
Now we are having great difficulty based on the price that the wheat board sold that grain, and based on those quotas that were established, in getting feed barley into the wheat board elevators in order that it can meet its contracts. The minister in charge of the wheat board should seriously look for an arrangement, and if it is not possible to look at the international market, to look, as they have done in the United States, at setting a minimum price before a farmer makes his decision to seed his crop. Then the wheat board can give indications to farmers about what crop it believes it can sell in the international market. If the price is established at a reasonable level, then the farmer will make his decision based on that price to grow a certain amount of those grains so that the wheat board can meet its obligations. Then we will not have, as we have now, farmers caught with quotas that are open-and grain, such as utility wheats and rapeseeds in their bins-and no barley to deliver based on that open quota.
Those are a few of the remarks I wanted to make on Bill S-6, the Two-Price Wheat Act. I hope the minister will take into consideration our two concerns with the bill, that of inflexibility in the upper limit, and the fact that in repealing this act we are, in effect, doing away with the subsidy to farmers for one year, and as a consequence farmers will be subsidizing consumers for that year.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, it has been the government's policy throughout the 1970s that a minimum price be maintained to producers of wheat for domestic human consumption at a reasonable level. This minimum price has been raised periodically as average market prices and costs of production increased. The price charged to domestic millers in 1969 was fixed at $1.95 and one-half cent per bushel which was raised to $3 per bushel in 1972. On September 12, 1973, it was again increased to $3.25 per bushel. During 1977 to 1978 the government made supplementary payments to producers to support domestic producer returns at $3.55 a bushel. In the fall of 1978 the minimum price was set at the current level of $4 per bushel.
In 1973 the government combined the fixed price for producers with a consumer subsidy payable to producers when export wheat prices were above $3.25 a bushel. Authority for the payments under this program was provided by the Two-Price Wheat Act. A maximum subsidy of $1.75 per bushel was
June 6, 1980

established which, in turn, set a maximum domestic price of $5 per bushel to producers. In the case of durum wheat, the domestic price was allowed to vary between $3.25 and $5.75 per bushel, and the subsidy was payable between $5.75 and $7.50 per bushel.
Under these subsidy arrangements, the government made payments totalling $396 million between 1973 and 1978 to the benefit of consumers. In the fall of 1978, as one of a number of measures designed to restrain government expenditures, the government decided to terminate subsidy payments under the Two-Price Wheat Act. This action was designed to save the government $200 million up to the end of this crop year.
At the same time a new domestic pricing scheme was introduced by establishing, through regulations under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, a minimum price of $4 and a maximum price of $5 for wheat sold for human consumption. The minimum price for durum was also raised to $4 per bushel, but the maximum was left at $7.50 per bushel. This action continued to provide a minimum price for the benefit of producers and to protect consumers against wheat prices rising above $5 a bushel or durum prices rising above $7.50 per bushel. In this respect the maximum domestic wheat price has remained at $5 a bushel since 1973, although average market prices have been significantly higher throughout this crop year.
The purpose of Bill S-6 is to remove any obligation for the government to pay the subsidy in the light of the changes made in the domestic pricing system. Consumers have been paying market prices up to a maximum of $5 a bushel. This has resulted in some increase in bread prices, although a number of other cost items have also contributed to the price rise. It is estimated that the impact on the consumer price index of the change in wheat prices was an increase of 0.04 per cent, while the food component of the index is estimated to have increased by 0.1 per cent during the three months following removal of the subsidy in 1978.
The Two-Price Wheat Act, and the current domestic wheat pricing scheme, apply up to the end of the current crop year. The government has announced a new policy to be implemented for the next crop year. It was announced in a bulletin, and I quote:
The new minimum and maximum prices for Canadian wheat sold for domestic human consumption will be $5 and $7 per bushel, basis No. 1 Canada Western Red Spring Wheat at Thunder Bay (i.c. a range between $183.72 and $257.21 per tonne).
I would point out to hon. members that the Two-Price Wheat Act came into force in July, 1974. It is to be repealed the earlier of the date to be fixed by proclamation or July 31, 1980. It is due for repeal July 31 this year. The purpose of Bill S-6 to bring into line what has actually been the practice throughout the years. I urge hon. members to support this bill.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the Two-Price Wheat Act before us today will prompt a lot of debate and discussion in the farm commu-
Two-Price Wheat Act
nity because we have just gone through a year when there was a considerable amount of subsidization by farmers. At one point farmers were being asked to contribute in excess of $1 million a day because the ceiling has been fixed.
The original intent of the Two-Price Wheat Act probably came out of arguments and discussions in the middle and late forties when the Government of Canada under Mackenzie King and later Louis St. Laurent made agreements with the government of Great Britain to provide wheat at guaranteed prices.
Those guarantees were not lived up to by either the British or the Government of Canada, which had made the agreement. This prompted farmers to ask for some restitution. After four or five years' debate, from statements having been made by various ministers of the day it became clear there was no excuse for the farmers not being paid a higher than world price for bread wheats consumed in Canada. It was argued that a great many other industries in this country were subsidized through tariffs. They are protected from competition outside our borders and cheap goods coming in. It was thought that a similar kind of protection should apply to domestically produced grains in the higher priced domestic market.
It was argued that at least the cost of production should be recovered for grains produced in Canada. It was realized that with the amount of exports and the size of the Canadian economy at the time, it was unrealistic to assist to the full cost of production. In most years those grains amounted to less than 10 per cent, and it was felt there should be a guaranteed cost of production.
It was a long time before that kind of act was introduced. As is always the case in politics, from the moment of conception until the moment of birth of the act, a great many changes had taken place. Instead of having a guaranteed cost of production for those grains produced for consumption within our boundaries, we had a floor price and a ceiling with a range that prices could fluctuate within. If the price on the world market dropped below the floor, the farmers were guaranteed the floor price for milling wheats in this country.
There was some protection for consumers in the proposal in that, if world prices went above the ceiling, domestic millers did not pay more than the ceiling price. For most of the time in the past year, world prices exceeded the ceiling. As a consequence, Canadian farmers in effect subsidized consumers because of the way this act is written. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael) gave figures for the past three years. He stated that by dropping the subsidies here the government saved something like $200 million.
At the same time as reducing the commitment to assistance in Canada occurred, we began operating under a different grain marketing system. We shifted the marketing of feed grains, lower grades of wheat, out of the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board on to the open market. The effect of that has further eroded the income of farm producers in western Canada.

June 6, 1980
Two-Price Wheat Act
A study was done by the grains committee of the Saskatchewan department of agriculture. It showed that approximately $160 million was lost by Saskatchewan producers over the past three years because of the use of the open market for the marketing of feed grains. If we had perfect markets, which we never have, theoretically that should represent a reduction in the cost of food for consumers of about $160 million. When you are aware of the kind of economics that play in the grains industry, you very quickly see that that did not happen. Rather than reductions in production costs of those industries that use mill feeds, there has been a greater concentration and build-up of feed mill capacity shifts in ownership, particularly in the production of hogs, especially in the province of Quebec where marketing boards were not a factor in the marketing of hogs.
Packing companies with their feed companies subsidiaries moved in to take advantage of the possibility of lower prices because effectively grain offered on the open market is distress grain. Prices are usually under pressure, and instead of purchasing grain through the Wheat Board where the board offers the product on behalf of the farmer and is in a strong position to argue about price, we have degenerated again into a position where individual farmers are attempting to make their own deals in competition with each other. Of course the price is depressed as a result.
The two factors combined have meant a considerable drop in income to farmers who live in the Wheat Board area, and we feel the whole situation could have been handled better had feed grain marketing remained under the Wheat Board and realistic guarantees been given on the consumption of grain in Canada.
We would propose that the subsidies be reimplemented. There is no real saving to be made by the government or the people of Canada through their abolition. We believe the open market for feed grain should be disbanded and that the Wheat Board should be put in control, not just because it provides better incomes for producers but for a whole range of reasons we cannot go into on this occasion. 1 have in mind factors which relate to the marketing, transportation, handling, allotment and movement of grain.
We think consideration should again be given to the original concept of the two-price system-instead of a floor and a ceiling within a range presented to the House every three or four years, annual negotiations should take place between the government, or an agency of government, and the farmers, to work out an acceptable cost-price formula for each year. The grain would then be purchased by millers. We think this would be in keeping with the market situation which exists in Canada today and that it would be more in harmony with the original idea of the two-price system as conceived by farm groups and others 20 or 30 years ago, and that it would be fairer to both producers and consumers.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-6, and particularly to reflect the view that in the scale of wheat one of the most important things to which
we need to pay attention is that in the whole field of agricultural production, farming and farm people are not given the attention in the market place that they ought to receive. It is fair to emphasize that invariably, in any country, fisheries, forestry, and agriculture are given bottom priority in terms of government expenditure or attention. It is neglected in this way despite the fact that yesterday 12,000 children under the age of five died of starvation and that today another 12,000 face the same fate, and tomorrow yet another 12,000.
We live in a world where at the present time four-fifths of the population are suffering from malnutrition. I am sure it is shocking for most Canadians in this rather affluent society to learn that some 70 million people in the world suffer from permanent and irreversible brain damage due to a lack of protein in their diet. So when we talk about farmers and wheat the first thing we should recognize is that the farmer is a businessman in the business of food production and there are only two sources of food in the world; one is soil and the other is water.
Traditionally those of us who have a prairie background used to think of wheat prices as running parallel to oil prices. The price of a bushel of wheat was roughly equivalent to the price of a barrel of oil. Those who remember the days when we got three dollars for wheat will recall that a barrel of oil also cost approximately three dollars. As the price of oil increased, so did the price of wheat. When oil cost four dollars, wheat cost four dollars, and things continued that way until the recent past when the separation between oil and wheat prices widened very rapidly. But the price of oil has gone up to something like $35 a barrel on the world market, while the price of wheat remains at between five dollars and seven dollars. This has meant an extremely sharp increase in import costs in the farm community in the area of chemicals, land values, machinery costs, labour costs and so on.
Of special importance is the increase in the cost of capital. I am not blaming the government, in particular, for this, but the interest rate situation at the present time puts pressure on the farming community, and we should all be aware that while farmers are in receipt of an income which is more or less fixed in terms of the prices they receive, they are unable to control the costs they must undertake in order to do their job adequately.
I have before me an interesting notation taken from a recent copy of the Edmonton Journal, a newspaper somewhat west of The Ottawa Journal. We learn that to pay for ten ounces of instant coffee at current prices a farmer has to sell 150 pounds of wheat. To buy a loaf of bread, which takes hardly more than one pound of wheat to make, he has to sell 13 pounds of wheat. When he leaves his automobile to be repaired, for one hour of shop time, let alone the cost of the parts, he has to sell about 600 pounds of wheat which is enough to make some 500 loaves of bread. If he has to spend an hour, not in your chair, Mr. Speaker, but in the dentist's chair, he finds he has to bring three tons of wheat as the equivalent to the price of the service he is getting. It is very interesting to consider that in the hypothetical loaf of bread costing 25 cents it would still cost
June 6, 1980

the consumer 23'/2 cents if the farmer gave his wheat away free.
When we talk about two-price wheat we are not merely talking about a second price which somehow guarantees to the farmer his ability to produce one of the most needed commodities in the world. Unfortunately, we find that this two-price system, because it is not regulated in relation to world market conditions, ends by forcing the farmer to sell his wheat at a price which subsidizes Canadian consumers.
We accept what the minister has presented to us today. This is only sufficiently satisfactory if we find that the world price for wheat does not rise above seven dollars. As soon as that happens, the farmer is subsidizing the consumers of Canada as he has done in past years on a number of occasions. Perhaps I will be excused by my hon. friends in this party if 1 quote from a Liberal senator, Senator Hays, who says that, with the exception of Denmark, Canada supports its agricultural industry to a lesser extent than any country in the industrialized world.
It is interesting to note that while farmers are not looking for subsidies or that kind of program in terms of income, there are mechanisms which we can put in place, particularly in terms of research, transportation and marketing, that would be of great assistance to the agricultural community, particularly in terms of getting the wheat price we want. With that in mind, I should like to note that government contributions to the agricultural income of farmers in Great Britain amount to some 67 per cent. In France that contribution amounts to 50 per cent, in the United States it is 17 per cent, and in Canada it is 1.7 per cent. It is clear to me that if we could have the systems in place which would allow for marketing plus a much more aggressive marketing activity in the international market place, we could begin to get a much more acceptable price into the farmer's pocket.
When I speak about putting a transport system in place, it should be known that farmers in each of the last several years have lost over S500 million in the prairies, not because they could not grow the grain, nor because they did not have the grades of grain, but rather because countries came asking for grades of grain which we have but for which we did not have the transport system to get that grain to port.
In a country that has a deficit as large as we have in Canada, where the largest single item on which we pay our taxes is interest on our accumulated foreign debt, not to have a transport system in place which would bring $500 million to the Canadian economy annually is an unforgivable fact in 1980. We have had ample time, and ever since the ample representation that was made at the WEOC convention in Calgary in 1973, we have been promised, as prairie people, that these needs would be attended to. In short, what we find is simply the echoing and re-echoing of the same promises, and little action is taking place in terms of getting the infrastructure in place.
Two-Price Wheat Act
I should also point out that because of the failure to put into place the kind of support system that we really need to have, demoralization is taking place in the agricultural production communities today. The fact that we have decreasing numbers of farmers, because nearly 10,000 farmers each year leave farm production work to go into other lines of business, and the fact that farming operations are becoming larger, indicate that the family farm concept is not feasible under the present kind of policy. While that is of concern to the farming community, it should be of particular concern to the world at large that our farmers are not able to stockpile food which traditionally we have done.
Throughout much of the 1950s and 1960s we thought that if all food production were to stop in the world, we would have food stockpiled to last us for more than 80 days. Four years ago, that amount dropped to a supply of food for 36 days, and at present we have food stockpiled for only 18 days. In part, that reflects not just the attitude of this government but the altitude of all governments toward the three industries which 1 mentioned previously, namely, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. Governments of all nations, whether they be democratic, dictatorial, or of other kinds, give an unusually low priority to these industries. It is an attitude that I have never been able to comprehend or appreciate. 1 say that, in view of the fact that there is no need in life as basic as food, and that need remains until the end of life, it is a requirement in all countries, and it becomes the focus on the international scene today as hunger.
I note that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), in listening to me today is finding great humour in my words as if I were not speaking seriously to him, or as if this were not a matter about which he could do something. So long as farm people are subsidizing the consumers in this country, at a time when Canadians are getting some of the cheapest food of any peoples in the world, 1 would say to any consumer group that 1 challenge them to go out and find any other country that can produce food as cheaply as it can be bought in Canada. In addition to that, let me remind the House that the average hourly earnings of a Canadian farmer in 1951 earned him two dozen eggs. In 1975 his average hourly earnings would buy him seven dozen eggs. If we compare the farmer with the consumer, we find that in 1976 the net farm income dropped some 20 per cent, and again in 1977 it dropped 11 per cent. I am short of data for the years between 1977 and the present, but I know that there was a drop last year and I know that for next year we are anticipating another significant drop in farm production incomes.
I plead with the government today that, in terms of the two-wheat policy, flexibility should be built into the bill before us so that when the world price increases above the ceiling, the price here can be moved upward. We must avoid the situation where producers find themselves in a tight squeeze but at the same time have to subsidize the consumers. If for some reason it becomes the judgment of the government that food prices are too high-which I argue they are not in this country in relation to the percentage of our disposable income which we spend on food-then surely the onus is on the government,

June 6, 1980
Two-Price Wheat Act
through the Parliament of Canada, to subsidize the consumer. The decision should not be reached automatically by way of a statutory act that subsidization should take place by forcing the farm producer to put his products on the market at a price below its value.
What this bill will do is to force us into the situation where we must put on the shelf cheaper food than what you could sell in the international market place, allowing Canadian consumers to purchase it more cheaply than they would normally be able to do, rather than the government taking that responsibility which is naturally theirs.
If we take a look at some of the increased expenses of the farm community, we note that the borrowing debt of farmers has almost doubled during the past six years. It has risen from $8.5 billion to the present situation where there is an increase of another $4.3 billion on top of that. Also it is worth while noting that out of every dollar spent by consumers only 38 cents go to the actual production of food or the farmer himself. The budget of the federal Department of Agriculture totals some $673 million, which is less than 2 per cent of total government expenditures. The one thing every Canadian does is eat three times a day, generally. What I have just said underscores the low priority given to agriculture and an agricultural commitment.
With a two-price wheat system, it is important to note that the obligation of the government is simply and absolutely to make an amendment to this bill of a nature to guarantee that, as the world market increases, the upper level remains flexible to the extent that farmers are not locked into the present system which I find unacceptable. As the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) so ably stated earlier in this debate, August 1, 1980, will be the date of the application of Bill S-6, which means in effect that farmers will have been without a program throughout the past year.
Even if total food costs have risen higher than other sectors of the economy, Canadians are spending less of their disposable income on food dollars than any other country in the world, including the United States. Canadians are spending approximately 17.5 cents of their disposable income for food dollars. In the United Kingdom it is 29.3 cents; in Ireland 32.6 cents; in Austria 28.6 cents; in Sweden 27 cents; and in France 23.4 cents.
In terms of the amount of disposable income which Canadians spend on food, and the fact that it is down to 17.5 cents out of every dollar, this means that we cannot listen to the hue and cry of consumers who say that farmers and producers should subsidize it. Rather, we must look at the data and recognize that on the world picture there is no nation, including the United States, that puts food on kitchen tables as cheaply as Canada. Surely that cheapness ought not to be the obligation of farmers. It must be public policy, for whatever reasons the government deems. Then it becomes incumbent upon all taxpayers to see that that policy is in place, and not one particular sector such as farm producers. 1 think Canadians have a respect for the value of farmers and their production, in view of the fact that they bring in the highest amount of capital which eases the balance of payments more than any other industry in Canada. Certainly it is of great importance that the agricultural community is the largest employer of any community in the country.
I see Mr. Speaker is indicating that it is about time for me to wind up the great address 1 am giving this afternoon. I had only a few moments notice to get ready for this; I did not know that it was to be brought on. It being 4.45 o'clock, I should like to take the opportunity to move to adjourn the debate today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member is quite correct in all respects except for his reference to the time. It is only 3.45. Earlier it was suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that at this time the debate on Bill S-6 be adjourned and the House would proceed to the consideration of Bill S-4.
Before we proceed with the hon. member's motion, I should like to indicate to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) that he retains his right to continue this debate when Bill S-6 next comes before the House for consideration.
Is it the pleasure to adopt the motion to adjourn the debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR ACT
Hon. Francis Fox (for the Minister of Labour) moved: that Bill S-4, to amend the Department of Labour Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: No!


Mr.  D. M.@: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank hon. members on all sides for their co-operation this afternoon. Since we have been so diligent in our work, as I mentioned earlier, we have been scurrying around for other work to do so that we do not waste any time. I understand there is a disposition on all sides to allow this bill to go to committee at four o'clock.
I rise to speak on second reading of this bill to amend the Department of Labour Act of 1900. I am sure the large majority of hon. members are familiar with the objective of this amendment. I am very sorry the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) or his parliamentary secretary could not be here this
June 6, 1980

afternoon to introduce this bill for second reading but, as I mentioned, it was decided on short notice.
The effect of the amendment is to put into effect the elimination of the requirement of the Department of Labour to publish the Labour Gazette and its companion publication la Gazette du Travail. It will be recalled that this enabling legislation was originally placed before the House in December, 1978, and again in October, 1979. These proposals were based mainly on the realization that the substantial cost of the two publications could no longer be justified at a time when major expenditure reductions were being ordered throughout government departments. I need scarcely point out the need for government restraint in expenditures. It is a continuing need on the part of this government, so the rationale for the earlier proposals remains just as effective today.
It would be fair to say that the Labour Gazette became a victim of changing tastes and technology over its 78 years of existence. For much of that time it was virtually the only journal of record in labour affairs, but in recent years several of its functions were taken up by advancements in communication methods and media, with the growth of specialized newspaper columns on labour affairs, trade and professional publications, and the electronic media, due to the high profile labour matters have continued to attract.
As a result, the role of the Labour Gazette evolved into a type of forum for the expression of points of view from the spectrum of participants in labour affairs, principally organized labour, management, and academics. Its audience tended to be a specialized one, and therefore a comparatively small one. It would be appropriate to note that the cost of publishing the Labour Gazette and la Gazette du Travail in the fiscal year 1979-80 was estimated at $225,000.
By ceasing publication at the end of the calendar year 1978-a logical time for librarian and archival purposes-a saving of some $83,000 was realized in the 1978-79 expenditures.
I mentioned the small size of the Gazette's audience: in fact the paid circulation of the Labour Gazette at its demise was only 2,800 copies and that of La Gazette du Travail just 750 copies.
Efforts were made to increase this low circulation, and the above figures actually represented an increase of some 590 copies in the Labour Gazette's circulation over the seven months preceding cessation.
These figures meant that while each annual subscription cost the subscriber only $7.50 for ten issues, the production cost amounted to about $60.00-a situation in which justifying the underwriting of more that $50.00 per year for each subscription was indeed difficult.
Furthermore, the Department of Labour Act does not, in
fact, require issuance of a publication such as that into which
the Labour Gazette evolved. The original legislation called
Department of Labour Act
only for the publishing of statistical records. Although the later version of the Labour Gazette still carried statistical data, its prime role had become that of a forum. It does without saying, as well, that over the years a vast range of statistics has become available from numerous other sources.
In the Department of Labour a careful study was undertaken to determine if any alternative reductions, in either programs or services, could be made to preserve the vehicle of the Labour Gazette. With regret, however, no alternative was available, and in fact a number of other publications also had to be terminated to meet the required expenditure reductions.
The decision was made, therefore, after much deliberation, to cease publishing these periodicals. This had the effect of reducing 1978-79 and 1979-80 expenditures by at least the amounts I have mentioned.
1 would make the point that the provision of a forum for independent labour-related opinion, as distinct from a vehicle for partisan thought, still has merit, provided it can be produced at reasonable cost. As I have indicated, there is absolutely no lessening of the real need to continue curbing financial expenditures. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that the effect of this legislation, while reacting to the restraint demands, eliminates the requirement to publish the Labour Gazette and La Gazette du Travail but does not prevent introduction of periodicals under the same or similar title if circumstances justify such action.
In the present circumstances, however, I have no option but to confirm the earlier decision to discontinue these publications.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I am personally astounded at the way in which the government has tried to justify the elimination of this historic and very useful document in terms of the world of labour in Canada. Frankly,
I am not prepared to get into debate as to whether everyone on my side of the House agrees with me, because frankly I do not care. I was opposed to the elimination of the Labour Gazette when I had the privilege of serving my leader as critic on labour matters in the House of Commons. 1 was opposed to the elimination of the Labour Gazette while I had the privilege of being a minister of a government, and 1 am absolutely and utterly opposed to the elimination of the Labour Gazette today, as a member of Her Majesty's Official Loyal Opposition.
I listened with great care to the reasons put forward by the parliamentary secretary who has given a speech which, of course, is the bureaucratic answer to the request of somebody in the Department of Labour that we find some way to cut down on expenditures.
We are talking about a publication that has been in existence, not just for years but for some decades. This has been a publication, to those of us who have had the privilege of reading it over the years, which has given an insight into the world of labour in this country. 1 have spent a great deal of time considering this matter and I must say that this publication is second to none.

June 6, 1980
Department of Labour Act
The suggestion being made this afternoon by the government, and I know there are members on both sides of the House who will support it, is absolutely and clearly erroneous that is, that this publication has no useful purpose in the management-labour world of Canada today.
1 have to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other members of this House, that, as a Conservative who believes in the civility of the community, the Labour Gazette is one of the most useful publications the Government of Canada has ever produced. If hon. members will send their researchers to look at this publication over the years they will find that on every great social issue this country has faced for many decades the Labour Gazette has treated the matter with intellectual competence and human understanding.
What distresses me so much is that in a wave of what 1 have to say is false economy we have destroyed this vital and very necessary publication. The hon. member who spoke on behalf of the government for the dissolution or ending of this publication, referred to the fact that its circulation is limited. There are easy ways to increase the circulation of a valid document. There obviously has been no attempt to increase circulation. What that hon. member did not talk about was the loss of those people who have put this publication to work and to press periodically throughout the years. They are now lost to us.
The terrible shame of this whole thing is that we could have kept this document in existence for years for less than what it is costing the taxpayer of Canada for those great full-page ads that have been appearing in the national newspapers of this country about the benefits to their areas of the purchase of a fighter plane. This fatuous advertisement has involved sums of money that have been carelessly thrown away.
When people come to the House and say they want to destroy this publication because of the need for economy, I must say to the House and the public that there are reasons for economies, and there will always be such reasons, but there is nothing more disastrous than mindless moves to limit expenditures for a certain thing when we have nothing to take its place. In this case we will have jettisoned, thrown over, eliminated something that has been of great benefit to the very many Canadians in this country who have needed something like the Labour Gazette.
I must say personally that I have no sympathy for anyone in this House, and I care not where they sit, who presumes to support what I think is a fundamentally shortsighted move. 1 tell those people, and I do not care whether they are in my party or in another party, that this is a mistake. It is a mistake which is breaking a great tradition and which is diminishing the capacity of an independent minded governmental group to comment on matters which are of essential importance to the economy of this country that is, the relations between management, government, and the working men and women of this country. I am sorry to have to do this, but I must register most violent opposition to this bill. I deeply regret that the government has not had the wit or the wisdom to realize that this
kind of uneconomic move, which is what it is called, is a self-defeating move.
1 ask all hon. members in this House this afternoon to stop and consider the advertising bill of this government and the countless thousands and millions of dollars which are spent promoting advertisements like some kind of pale, imitation tea party type of program. I would like them then to ask themselves if that money could have been used to save something which is so legitimate and crucial to whether or not this country pays its way in the coming years. I say, with no fear of contradiction-and if anyone wishes to contradict me, I will take them on in any form at any place-the fact is that the relations between management and labour in this country are essential to whether or not we ever balance a budget or get out of the trade deficit situation we are in now. We must provide a civil community in which the people, whether they are being paid a salary or a wage, or whether they are making the decisions within industry or government, are to live together in peace and some kind of reasonable accord.
1 deeply regret this move, and 1 think that it is folly. There will be a time when we may well stand in this House and ask that the publication be reinstated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member at this time, but perhaps we should seek the unanimous consent of the House if we intend to debate this bill beyond four o'clock.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to thank the House again for its collaboration this afternoon. The agreement was that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would speak for a few minutes on Bill S-4 and that we would then give it second reading and send it to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. We would then immediately proceed through all stages of Bill S-3 without debate, and then to private members' hour, which may go a little beyond five o'clock. If there is unanimous agreement to that, it will be completed within a matter of five minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is there unanimous consent to that proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the statement just made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) is correct, namely, that we are prepared to keep this debate short and to send this bill to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. However, when the bill is called after I sit down, I shall be shouting, "on division".
Like the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), 1 am strongly opposed to this bill, the purpose of which is to bury the Labour Gazette. It is not a case of a funeral immediately at the point of death, because the government killed the
June 6, 1980

Labour Gazette a year or so ago. It is a case of Parliament being asked, after the event, to approve what the government has done.


John Allen Fraser: You are absolutely right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: However, the reasons I am opposed to the bill have in large part been stated by the hon. member for Vancouver South. In the first place the Labour Gazette has been a very important instrument in labour relations for decades. I suggest that to bring it to this unceremonious end is a mistake. In the second place I do not like the government taking these actions first and then asking Parliament to approve of them afterwards. In the third place I do not like the unfairness to the employees involved in the publication of the Labour Gazette which is represented by the action of the government in bringing this publication to an end.
I should like to take a minute or two to warn every Liberal member of this House that tonight the ghost of Mackenzie King may stalk their bedrooms. I hope that he scares the daylights out of them. I remind the Liberal government that in effect it is bringing to an end an important piece of Canadian history and a highly important piece of Liberal history. I invite members of that party to read books such as "William Lyon Mackenzie King", a political biography, by R. McGregor Dawson, and in particular to note the experiences which Mackenzie King went through in the summer of 1900.
Mackenzie King spent part of that summer in Rome and part of it in London. At that time the institution of the Labour Gazette was being considered, and its publication was to be under the direction of the then postmaster general, the late William Mulock. In the middle of the summer Mr. Mulock sent a telegram to Mackenzie King in Rome offering him the editorship and management of the new Labour Gazette which would begin in July, at a salary of $1,500 a year. Mr. King at that point was trying to get into academic life. He thought he had an opening at Harvard University. He knew that if he got such an opening at Harvard, it would pay $400 or $500 a year.
According to this diary, he went through great travail of soul as to which of those offers he should take. It seemed to bother him that he was leaning in the direction of taking the choice that made the most money. But, of course, he was prepared to do that only if it was for the common good. However, when he leaned the other way and considered accepting the offer at Harvard, he found that Professor Taussig at Harvard, whose books on economics some of us had to study some years later, and his father, the late John King, both urged him very strongly that the place for him to come was to Ottawa to take on the important function of editing the Labour Gazette.
That is the beginning, in a practical sense, of the Liberal party having some interest in labour relations. Mr. King went from that position to other positions in the Department of Labour, to become its deputy minister and so on. Then in 1908 he took the further step of becoming a member of the House of Commons and, of course, we all know what happened from that point onward, how he became the Prime Minister of this
Department of Labour Act
country and held that position longer than any other person, at least thus far.
But now we have the Liberal party saying that this patron saint of theirs, who is capable-according to his beliefs-of coming back and bothering them, is to be brushed aside with all his interest, as I say, in having a publication which would play a part in labour management relations. It has done that through the years. I think that it is a serious mistake to discontinue the publication, and that is all that this bill does. It substitutes a clause in the Department of Labour Act for one that is already there, and it brings to an end a requirement to publish the Labour Gazette. It is a mistake, and a move to which 1 am strongly opposed.
However, we have agreed not to spend too long debating it this afternoon, but in return for that the government has agreed that the bill will go to committee so that it may be considered further and, if necessary, considered again back in the House. Along with the member for Vancouver South and on behalf of my colleagues, 1 register very strong opposition to this bill, to what it does to the Labour Gazette and to what it does to the memory of the Liberal party's patron saint, Mackenzie King.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there has been a House order and some sort of agreement on this bill that there will be no further speeches. Is that the understanding of the Chair?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That is the understanding I sought, a moment ago.


David Kilgour: I discussed the matter with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). If I understand my friend correctly, I should like to add something in support of his position on the bill, but if it is the ruling of the Chair and the understanding of hon. members that there be no further speakers today, obviously I shall abide by that. I just wonder if Your Honour could clear this up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. If we are to reverse the prior decision it would have to be with unanimous consent. Unanimous consent was granted by hon. members a few minutes ago that we not see the clock at four o'clock and go beyond five o'clock for private members' hour. It was understood that there would be one more speaker.


David Michael Collenette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the agreement was that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) would speak, then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would reply to what I said and that now we would call the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That is what the Chair understood. It has been brought to my attention that I referred to hon. members a few moments ago as "honourable gentlemen". To the lady members present, I wish to apologize.
Is the House ready for the question?

June 6, 1980
Port Wardens Act


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.

[ Translation]


QUEBEC AND MONTREAL PORT WARDENS ACTS
Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill S-3, to amend an Act to provice 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, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Ethier in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. It being 4.15 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Order No. 4. Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works of Bill C-204, an Act to amend the National Energy Board Act (provincial representation and sunlight provisions).
[ Translation]


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Trade)):: As it is already pretty late, Mr. Speaker, that is, past the normal time for consideration of private members' business could you tell us in advance at what time we are expected to adjourn, following consideration of private members' business?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary is seeking accurate information on what time the debate will end. 1 thought it was understood in the prior commitment that we would not see the clock at four o'clock and that we would give one hour to private members' business. The House will therefore sit until 5.15 p.m.
Shall order No. 4 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971 AMENDMENT RESPECTING MATERNITY BENEFITS
Mr.   C'has. L. Caccia@Davenport: that Bill C-205, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (maternity benefits), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. There has been some doubt over the years respecting the ability of members to introduce bills amending the Unemployment Insurance Act without infringing the financial prerogative of the Crown, the benefit of which was given to the member.
Currently, the government shares the cost of the first two phases of the regular unemployment insurance benefits with the private sector, that is, initial regular and labour force extended benefits, on the basis of a cost sharing formula which features an eight-year moving average of unemployment rates, also called the threshold rate of unemployment. In accordance with this formula the government finances the cost of such regular benefits that is attributed to the excess of the actual rate of unemployment in a calendar year over the "threshold rate" of unemployment. The government also finances the cost of benefits paid during the third phase of benefits, also called regional extended benefits, the net cost of benefits paid to self-employed fishermen as per subsection 146(2), and the cost of benefits paid during any extension granted under sections 38, job creation, and 39, training.
The above points clearly to a scheme which is sustained not only by contributions from the private sector but also by charges on the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
When a private members' bill provides for an extension in the benefit period, for an enlargement of the class of possible claimants, or for an increase in the benefits payable under the act, the charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund would consequently be increased. Therefore, in my view, any such bill
June 6, 1980

would be a "money bill" which must be introduced by a minister of the Crown and accompanied by the recommendation of the Governor General.
However, because there has been some considerable latitude given in the past, the Chair will, in this instance, enter a caveat as to the procedural acceptability of Bill C-205, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (maternity benefits), since it infringes the financial intitiative of the Crown, in the light of the scheme of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Notice is now given, however, that members should accordingly govern their requests to the office of the law clerk and parliamentary counsel to draft such bills.
1 intend to allow the debate to take place on this bill until such a debate comes to an end and then will rule on the acceptability of the bill.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank you for your ruling and for permitting debate to take place on this bill.
I appreciate the difficulty you have encountered in deciding whether it would be acceptable. I certainly appreciate your conclusion, and thank you for your permission to go ahead with the bill.
For the benefit of hon. members, may I ask you to cast your mind back to 1971 when the then Liberal government decided to include the concept of maternity benefits in unemployment insurance, despite strenuous opposition from several quarters.
We all thought that the idea of maternity protection for women in the labour force was good Liberal ideology and one with which a modern industrial state could come to grips and implement. The good Liberal policies of 1971 were like a good wine which needs time to settle and improve itself. Now, nine years later, it is becoming clear, and a number of national organizations have brought this to our attention, that changes are needed in order to improve what was rather radical and advanced thinking in social legislation.
Let me briefly illustrate for the benefit of members present what Bill C-205 intends to do.
In the existing legislation, which we propose to amend with this bill, ten of the first 20 weeks of pregnancy must coincide with the minimum 20 weeks of contributions. If a woman who is in the labour force has only nine or less weeks at work at the beginning of her pregnancy, she is disqualified even if she has worked 20 other weeks.
Second, we can take the case of a woman who is not eligible for maternity benefits, because of the description that I have just given, expecting a child and is unemployed. She cannot qualify for unemployment insurance in the period eight weeks before and six weeks after the birth of the child. In other words, within a period of 15 weeks, which happens to coincide with the birth of the child, that woman cannot draw unemployment benefits.
Maternity Benefits
Third, take the case of a woman who lives in the Atlantic provinces where she needs 15 weeks of contributions to qualify for unemployment insurance in general. But if she has contributed 16 weeks she will not qualify for maternity benefits because the law says that she has to have 20 weeks. This rule applies across the entire nation regardless of regional qualification for unemployment insurance benefits. She will not qualify for regular benefits for 15 weeks, again around the date of the birth of her child. That woman in the labour force is penalized twice-and I am using the word "penalized" in a very narrow sense-in relation to her colleagues in the labour force who may become unemployed for different reasons other than maternity.
Finally, let us take the existing case today. For every week that a woman is on unemployment insurance because of unemployment or sickness during the preceding year to her maternity, one week is deducted from her maternity benefits, if she qualifies. That means that if in the preceding year the woman has been covered for unemployment insurance purposes for five, ten or 15 weeks, these weeks are deducted from her total maternity benefits.
With these illustrations in the background, I suggest that Bill C-205 represents one small step in the direction of a more extensive maternity policy. It is really an effort to bring equality of access to unemployment insurance benefits. It is nothing more than that.
1 would suggest also that in the 1980s and in an industrial society like ours we do have to develop an approach which will go well beyond the scope of Bill C-205. This bill before us somehow redresses imbalances. It attempts to establish certain equality and, as I mentioned earlier, access to benefits- nothing more than that. Certainly we do need more than that. That, of course, can only be done within the scope that is given to a government and to a minister in charge of this type of policy.
I would say in commending Bill C-205 that it is meant to bring parity in the treatment of working women, who apply for maternity benefits, in line with the treatment of others who apply for regular benefits. At the present time the requirements for maternity benefits are stricter than those for other benefits.
With this bill we are proposing to replace section 30(1) with a clause that will make maternity benefits available to pregnant women who have worked 20 weeks in the 52-week benefit period. At present, and I am going to repeat the illustration of a moment ago but in a different way, for a woman to be eligible for maternity benefits, the time when she becomes pregnant is crucial to whether or not she is eligible for benefits. She must have worked 20 weeks, like any other worker, but ten of those weeks must overlap with ten of the first 20 weeks of her pregnancy. I shall repeat that: a woman must have worked 20 weeks, like any other worker, but ten of those weeks must overlap the ten of the first 20 weeks of her pregnancy.
For instance, if a woman stopped working nine weeks after becoming pregnant, she would not be eligible for maternity benefits even though she would qualify for other benefits. This

June 6, 1980
Maternity Benefits
has the effect of making women who apply for maternity benefits work longer than other people.
In this bill we are proposing to delete part of section 30(2) so that maternity benefits can be claimed at any time once the person qualifies. At the present time, Mr. Speaker, a woman can only claim maternity benefits during the first 15 weeks of the initial benefit period. This means that if she had already collected ten weeks of benefits in the preceding 12 months, because she was sick or lost her job, she could only collect five weeks of maternity benefits. Therefore the aim of this bill is that maternity benefits should not be reduced because a woman has collected benefits for other reasons. Other reasons are in a different category. Maternity benefits ought not to be touched by benefits received for other reasons.
Bill C-205 proposes to delete section 46 so that pregnant women who are not eligible for maternity benefits can collect regular benefits. At the present time the law says that women do not qualify for maternity benefits, even though they have worked 20 weeks and cannot collect regular benefits in a period which starts eight weeks before the expected date of delivery and ends six weeks after the birth of the child. For a period of 15 weeks these women get nothing, even if they are out looking for a job and even if, under other circumstances, they would be collecting unemployment insurance. On the part of the state I submit, therefore, that there is an arbitrary and somehow inflexible assumption of the period during which women are not available or capable of work. I submit that is not a decision for the state to make.
Bill C-205 also proposes to amend section 25 so that regular benefits are available for pregnant women who are not eligible for maternity benefits but who do meet the regional requirements which may be, in some parts of Canada, less than 20 weeks. This amendment would complement the removal of section 46, to which I made reference a moment ago, by ensuring that the woman is not prevented from collecting regular benefits in the 15-week period around the birth of her child, and that she will be eligible for regular benefits if she is unable to work because of pregnancy and has contributed to the fund for the number of weeks required in her region, like everyone else, if it is less than 20 weeks.
This bill proposes to bring in line our Unemployment Insurance Act with the recommendations made by the Human Rights Commission in recent times. Hon. members may be familiar with the case of Stella Bliss who was not able to obtain maternity benefits because of what is called in the departmental jargon in Ottawa "the magic 10 rule". She was disentitled from regular employment benefits even though she was capable of work and had a major attachment as a claimant. She claimed this was discrimination on the basis of sex. The Supreme Court of Canada did not agree that discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy was discrimination on the grounds of sex, and therefore her appeal was disallowed.
The Human Rights Commission said that the case of Stella Bliss illustrates that women can suffer economic penalties if they attempt to combine the social roles of work and childbearing, both, of course, a necessary and valuable contribution in the development of our country. In pursuing the idea of Bill C-205, namely, that of equal access to unemployment insurance benefits, one inevitably has to ask what would be an ideal period for coverage of women in the labour force who are pregnant and have a child before this type of economic support comes to an end.
The present period of coverage is far too short. At the same time it is extremely difficult to obtain an indication of what would be an adequate period of time. Some feel the coverage should be extended to two, three or even four years. It would say the first step would be to amend the act so as to provide a maternity benefit of six months. This would be an increase of 1 I weeks on the existing 1 5.
Some may ask why this should be done. Perhaps we ought to look at this matter from the point of view of the child as much as from the point of view of the mother and what benefits are derived for society as a whole. If we were to increase the benefit period to six months, we would have an investment in the future of our society, the future generations. The happier the child is, the fewer problems he will have later on which fall into the category of juvenile deliquency, need for institutional care, and behaviour of adults that sometimes degenerates to what we learn from the headlines.
It must be clear that every step along this path is addressing itself to and is meant for women who need help most. In this country there is an increasing number of women entering the labour force and an increasing number of single parents. The women we think of with regard to this bill are not those with the glamorous jobs. After a pregnancy, they would not go back to a terrific job. They would go back to factory jobs, clerical, assembly line or cleaning jobs, mostly in our cities.
These women have to bundle up their children between six and seven in the morning, winter and summer. They must take the subway in order to get the child to a day nursery in another place. The child is left there, picked up at the end of the day, and contact is again re-established with the child.
These situations are increasing in number and are more and more typical of our industrial society. The emphasis must be in considering the mother and the child. Last week in this House the report was submitted by the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child. 1 would like to put on record two quotations from that report because they seem to be helpful for the consideration of the government once it moves in this direction.
One thought in that report indicates that benefits should follow the child. Distinction should not be made between male and female parents when considering those benefits which provide for the care and nuturing of a child. In other words, the main stress or concern ought to keep in mind the interest
June 6, 1980

of the child in the long run and our responsibility as members of society to the next generation.
In the same report the commission put forward the idea of a parenthood insurance scheme whereby a long-term strategy would enable both men and women to participate in the paid labour force while, at the same time, fulfilling their responsibilities as parents. There would be a nine months "child leave" with 75 per cent of regular income, and so on.
The province of Quebec has legislation whereby that provincial government pays expectant mothers a benefit during the first two weeks of their maternity leave while waiting to receive the unemployment insurance cheques to which they are entitled. This measure could be adopted by other provinces, including my province of Ontario, since it is fully and squarely within the realm of the power of provincial governments in the field of social security.
There are weaknesses in the present act. Something can be done about them. One has to do with disentitlement because of labour disputes. During a strike by Air Canada last winter there were women who were due to go on maternity benefits. Once the strike began, they were disqualified because of that development. They were denied benefits until the strike was resolved. Evidently the strike was beyond the control of the workers in that company. That matter should be redressed for the benefit of the mother and the child.
There are certain aspects of the Canada Labour Code that should be brought into line. These should be brought to the attention of interested members if this bill is given second reading and allowed to go to committee.
In conclusion, I want to put some figures on record. In 1974 the total number of women in the labour force was 3,276,000. In 1979 that figure jumped to 4,408,000. In 1974 the number of women in the labour force between ages 20 and 44, the child bearing years, was 1,968,000. Last year that figure increased by almost one million to 2,778,000, a substantial increase of 41 per cent.
I see that my time has expired. Before concluding I wish to thank all those who helped in the drafting of this bill and in gathering the necessary information.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak this afternoon as the member responsible in my party for matters affecting employment, and that includes the unemployment insurance measure before us.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for once again bringing the attention of the House to a continuing problem with a piece of legislation which was passed for the first time in 1971. It was a bad piece of legislation at that time, and it is a bad piece of legislation today. Considerable time has been spent by the House of Commons in trying to correct the legislation, and the hon. member opposite brings another illustration of its inadequacy to our attention today.
Maternity Benefits
One of the issues which the hon. member raised was that to qualify for maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act an applicant should be able to specify the exact date on which she became pregnant. Unless medical science has made advances of which I am unaware, I believe we have a somewhat elusive phenomenon here that one cannot prove, and therefore claimants experience problems when they go to unemployment insurance offices and attempt to establish their right to benefits. This speaks, I think, to the complexity of the unemployment insurance legislation and to the difficulties which are created for claimants across the country.
One of the remarkable features of the bill is the relative proportion of the premiums from employers, employees, and government contributions which today go into the administration of the act itself, not into the benefits, not into the support systems or to the men and women in this country who need that kind of support, but simply into the administration which is a consequence of a badly designed act, one which is difficult to administer.
1 would like to bring it to the attention of the House that the government which was elected in this country in May of 1979 undertook as a matter of priority a complete review of the Unemployment Insurance Act. In mind were several principles. One of these was to introduce-reintroduce might perhaps be a more accurate term-and reinforce the use of basic insurance principles. The unemployment insurance fund was originally to be a form of insurance, not different from health or car insurance. Those who through no fault of their own found themselves unemployed would be entitled on an insurance basis to income support which might ride them over until they were able to secure employment again. That principle was abandoned in 1971 and there has been a continuing problem ever since.
The second important purpose of the review was to simplify the plan both for ease of administration and public understanding. Anybody who sits in this chamber representing a riding in this country can speak, 1 think, to the degree of public misunderstanding which cuts across this country. People do not understand the Unemployment Insurance Act. We have situations where people who live across the street from each other have different eligibility requirements, not different premiums but different eligibility requirements. Some have to work for ten weeks, while their neighbour, right across the street, has to work for 14 weeks before becoming eligible for benefits. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, that speaks to the complexity of the act and the high cost of administration attached to it.
In our review we set out to make the measure more cost-effective. I think this suggests the need which exists to direct the benefits of the measure to those who need them most.
As a new member of Parliament elected for the first time in May of 1979 and sitting in the previous Parliament, I found that on the first occasion our Standing Committee on Manpower and Immigration met to examine main estimates, it was brought to our attention that the Auditor General some two years previously had alerted the officials and the minister of manpower and immigration to the fact that some $300 million

June 6, 1980
Maternity Benefits
worth of overpayments were being made out of this fund. We inquired of the minister's officials what had been done in the preceding two years to streamline the administration of the fund to tackle this problem. The answer we received on that occasion, Mr. Speaker, was: nothing. Three hundred million dollars worth of overpayment, a two-year alert to that situation and still the bureaucracy and the minister had done nothing! One of the first things we did was to attempt to ensure that for the same premiums more money would be available to people who would be eligible for the benefits.
One of the other measures we took, Mr. Speaker, was to circulate a discussion paper to provinces, to the unions to management, and to women's groups across the country, proposing amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and we began to hold, in the short time we formed the government, working-level meetings to discuss and clarify the options we were proposing. We were seeking input, not on one aspect of the legislation, such as we are discussing here this afternoon, but on all the necessary aspects of the measure. We did this with a view to getting to a point at which the legislation would make sense to Canadians. This bill has been one of the irritants.
Canadians, as 1 experience them, are people of good will. They do not enjoy paying taxes, but there is a sense of willingness to pay taxes provided people can be convinced that the money they pay to the support of government is being used in worth-while and equitable ways. That was the thrust of the process that our government started and it is a thrust which, as near as I can tell, has not been continued. I think the government opposite has a rather clear and consistent track record of arbitrary decision making, arbitrary confrontation, and minimal consultation with affected groups.
1 sat here this afternoon and heard the hon. member opposite defend his bill and, for the most part, I found that defence commendable. I think he did bring to our attention some of the inequities which exist. But I found myself here wondering where was the principle which should guide government policy in this area. What principles are we addressing when a bill such as this is proposed? Where is the fundamental decision as to whether or not the people of Canada would like the government to have sets of social policy that would encourage more rapid population growth in this country? I think we could find lots of people who might testify to the need for a policy which would accelerate population growth.
If you start with that kind of principle or goal for government policy, does that lead one normally and naturally to a revision of the Unemployment Insurance Act? Does it lead to a revision of the Family Allowances Act? Does it lead to a revision of pensions? Where does that starting point take you? It is in that context that we should examine any expenditure plan. Surely this is a component of an expenditure plan.
Is it really equitable to propose that those people who may have been unemployed or are not part of the labour force for an extended period of time and who choose to work on what is
perhaps a short-term project of interest to them, perhaps as short as ten weeks, and who subsequently find themselves pregnant, should receive in those circumstances several weeks of benefits at $100 or $120 a month? Is that a priority in federal expenditure as compared to benefits for someone who chooses to raise a family? Perhaps that person would like to have four or five children. Should taxpayers' money be used to support the first case or the second case, and if we have unlimited funds or if we see it as a priority, should we be devoting public money to supporting both cases?
I think it is a mistake for members of Parliament to make decisions regarding the spending of money in one area without sufficient examination of alternate possibilities.
Another option which was presented in the discussion paper and which, I think, bears repeating in this forum and making it part of the public record, is whether there should be a difference in the eligibility for unemployment insurance between those who voluntarily terminate their association with the labour force and those who are terminated in a job through no choice of theirs. In the Chrysler situation where a company lays off a great number of workers, clearly a case can be made for unemployment insurance benefits to be paid, but when people voluntarily choose to leave the labour force, should they have the same rights to benefits from this fund as do others?
Another principle which was important in our discussion paper and in our way of thinking about this fund was the need, at a time when we are experiencing dramatic price increases, to give more careful consideration to the economic needs of those who have dependants, such as single parents, married people who are the sole support of their children, or perhaps relatives who are handicapped. Should they be eligible for a higher level of support than those who only need to support themselves? That is a fundamental principle which should be addressed in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and perhaps in terms of this bill.
One of my colleagues asked a few minutes ago whether the same level of benefits should be granted to a recently widowed woman with three children to support as to someone who might be classed as a millionaire or a multi-millionaire. Do we really believe that public money should be expended equally in both cases? That is a fundamental debate in which this House has not engaged for some time, and in the present circumstances it might be wise some time in the future to have the House engage in that kind of debate because it is an issue which cuts across individual pieces of legislation. It might perhaps speak to the different philosophies of the parties in the House.
The NDP, clearly and consistently, argues in favour of the principle of universality, the paying of the same amount of money to millionaires and to poor people. That is how I would describe that principle. On the other hand our party believes that the taxpayers of Canada are more willing to support and have more faith in governments if they could believe that the money which the government takes away from them is being spent on purposes which they believe they can support.
June 6, 1980

There was a set of paragraphs in the discussion paper which addressed the issue raised by the hon. member opposite in the House today. There was an examination of the issue of parttime employment within the process. There was an examination- I think this would be a fundamental change in the use of these benefits, the money which exists in the unemployment insurance fund-of the development of sets of principles and conditions which might provide a more developmental, long-range view of the use of this fund. Perhaps more emphasis should be given to the utilization of the benefits to provide income support for people whose occupation has become obsolete and who, therefore, need more training, to use, perhaps, some of these benefits to provide income support and employment to people who engage in projects of benefit to their community.
Those are the kinds of ideas which we, as the government, wanted the people of Canada to examine with us before making a decision. 1 think, Mr. Speaker, it would be a mistake-if you were to rule that this bill is legal in the context of what members of Parliament can do-to pass a piece of legislation that is not in the context of our social services policy and in the entirety of our social insurance act.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation because ! think the principle involved in this bill is a very important and crucial one. As you stated before, Mr. Speaker, there was some question about the procedural correctness of this bill being a private member's bill. While I claim no knowledge of procedure, I must say that from a substantive point of view, from the point of view of social justice and public policy, this bill should not be a private member's bill but should be a government bill. If it were a government bill, of course, it would be simply a bill in which the Liberals were correcting mistakes which they themselves had made in the past as they changed colours and weaved from this side of the road to the other side.
Let me come to the substance of the bill. Clearly the unemployment insurance legislation at this point discriminates against women, particularly against women who work and raise children. This is a kind of discrimination which we must remove from legislation and from public policy. This has been clearly recognized as a matter of discrimination by the Human Rights Commission, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and also it would be recognized as discrimination under the Canadian Bill of Rights.
In these times there is a lot of discussion about entrenching the Bill of Rights, about putting that in the constitution. Often when we talk about the constitution we talk about it in a very legalistic fashion. Considering this kind of legislation, and thinking about the constitutional discussions which are presently ongoing, makes me think a better way to talk about the constitution, other than in a legalistic fashion, is to look at our basic values, the basic objectives of society, and to bring the legal framework into line with them. If we allow this kind of
Maternity Benefits
discrimination to continue, then it does not matter what kind of legalistic framework we have for governing the country. What is important is how we govern it, and toward what end.
Discrimination against women cannot continue in our society if we are to have a just and equitable society. We should remind ourselves that probably the most important social movement in Canadian society is the women's movement for equality and justice. Certainly it is the movement which offers the greatest potential for over-all social change, and change for the better in our society.
1 am reminded of a study which was recently released in Winnipeg. By the way, this study was funded by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion; it was done locally in that city. It related to poverty in the inner city. It clearly highlighted the fact that the most devastating and blatant poverty is suffered by women in the inner cities, more particularly women of native ancestries. By and large these women are single parents who need the most help and who, under the present Unemployment Insurance Act, are penalized and discriminated against when they attempt to work. It seems to me one way to save the public purse money is to have people working rather than on welfare. If there is any group that could save the public purse money by moving from welfare to work, it is single parents, yet we continue to discriminate against them and to penalize them in their efforts to be a part of the work force.
A further part of this bill which I find very puzzling is the so-called magic ten weeks because of the fact that it is based upon the assumption that we know when a child is to be born. 1 am a relatively recent parent, a father of two children, and certainly I had no way of knowing when those children were to arrive. Given the best medical advice and the fact that I attended pre-natal classes and was very intimately involved in the process of my children being born, I was totally surprised when my children eventually arrived. It is hard for me to know how a bureaucrat who is very far removed from this situation in any particular family can set a date on the arrival of a child. In other words, this magic ten weeks is in no way magical; it is absurd. Of course it is discriminatory and should be removed.
The other basic underlying philosophy behind the present unemployment insurance regulations is that the unemployed are to blame for being unemployed, that it is because of them we have high unemployment insurance costs. Simply that is not true; it is a myth. The ones who are to blame for very high unemployment and the related high costs, of course are those who are in charge of managing the economy. If we were to direct our attention to better management of the economy, rather than attempting to appear tough with regard to the users of unemployment insurance, then the cost of unemployment would be reduced and the wealth of the nation would be increased. Rather than simple legislation which appears to alleviate problems, we need better management of the economy, and we need a more just approach to the distribution of wealth.

June 6, 1980
Maternity Benefits
Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that the principle of this bill is worthy of support. This is something that needs to be done, and, hopefully, it is something the government should allow to be done, and done today.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, any legislation "to reduce the economic penalties suffered by women", as stated in the explanatory notes of Bill C-205, is quite laudable in my opinion.
It is a fact that the provisions of the unemployment insurance plan as a whole must be constantly reviewed in light of ever changing conditions and recent experience. As everyone is aware, because of past experiences, governments have always made in-depth studies of the basic principles of the unemployment insurance plan before making any important changes. The frequently long and complex process of reviewing plan objectives and operations to make it more flexible and to simplify it is always necessary. One of the general elements of such a review is the examination of all special conditions and benefits.
In the context of such a general review, the government could also look at the problems and the issues surrounding maternity benefits to determine whether they are sufficiently fair and flexible or to see how special benefits, including maternity benefits, function within the framework of the unemployment insurance plan.
Some of the issues dealt with in this bill will certainly be included in any eventual review of the unemployment insurance plan. 1 am talking about the restrictions concerning the eligibility of pregnant woman for ordinary benefits and of the period during which a pregnant woman can receive maternity benefits. These issues, including the so-called ten-week rule greatly concern the government.
I believe that the basic purpose of this bill is quite laudable. However, Mr. Speaker, 1 think that my male colleagues have not considered certain subtleties of the Unemployment Insurance Act and regulations. This act and these regulations constitute a series of provisions which are interdependent to a certain extent. Very often one cannot be amended without affecting the other.
For instance, Bill C-205 proposes that conditions for maternity benefits entitlement be the same as those for sickness benefits entitlement. More specifically, a woman would have to prove that, if it were not for her pregnancy, she would be available for work. The idea would be to assimilate maternity benefits with sickness benefits. I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I find this idea totally unacceptable.
To suggest that maternity benefits should be ruled by the same conditions which apply to sickness benefits implies that pregnancy is a sickness. Which is clearly not the case, as hon. members of the fair sex will recognize readily.
The second point which I should like to raise is not so evident to the non-specialist because of its technical aspect, but it is not less important. Now, a pregnant woman must submit a medical certificate to prove her pregnancy. This certificate must show the expected date of her confinement. Under the current provisions, a woman may choose to begin collecting benefits ahead of the eight-week period before her expected date of delivery.
She does not have to prove she would be available for work during that eight-week period. This is a criterion that applies to anyone claiming sickness benefits, if a pregnant woman had to prove she was available for work, often she could not do so. That would reduce the quietude pregnant women now enjoy to prepare themselves for giving birth. By specifying the same criteria for both maternity and sickness benefits, this bill could complicate things uselessly.
1 think that is neither fair nor reasonable. Why make it more difficult to prepare for the birth of a child, which is a privileged and important moment in the life of a woman and, I am convinced, critical for the health of the woman as well as that of the child. Current provisions on maternity benefits are flexible and take those factors in consideration. That is why they must be preserved.
But, Mr. Speaker, it should be understood here that I am not suggesting the eligibility criteria governing maternity benefits should not be reviewed or even amended. What I am saying, however, is that those provisions and others should first be considered more carefully so all other new provisions will be equitable.
Mr. Speaker, this bill touches sensitive and controversial issues, issues that have brought women to exert considerable pressure on the government so it would change what they perceived as inequalities in the current provisions on maternity benefits.
1 sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, this matter will be given all the necessary importance so our unemployment program will be amended so as to allow women to live their lives fully and according to the rights of every individual. So women should have the right to be on the labour market, the right also to stay at home during a pregnancy and to educate their children but at the same time they must have access to an unemployment insurance program that pays them just and fair benefits.
Mr. Speaker, society needs all its individuals but, without any pretention, I would dare say that women are indispensable because you must certainly know the proverb, and I do not know where it comes from, which says: Being unable to look after everything, God created woman."
June 6, 1980


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 wanted to ask a question about Monday's business. I thought that you were calling it five o'clock.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, with leave, 1 would like to call it 5.15 o'clock.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may 1 ask if there is someone left over there who can tell us what the menu will be on Monday?


Claude-André Lachance: Here I am again, Mr. Speaker. 1 could say to the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Knowles) that, in principle, we will continue Committee of the
Business of the House
Whole consideration of Bill C-19, to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May 1 ask the parliamentary secretary a supplementary question? Does the failure of the parliamentary secretary to mention the closure debate for Monday mean that the government has dropped that ridiculous idea?


Claude-André Lachance: Since the hon. member insists, I can tell him that it is possible, if not probable, that the motion will be introduced on Monday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
It being 5.15 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1) the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, June 9, 1980