1980-05-16

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
29 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada KIA 0S9
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 16, 1980


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion which 1 hope will commend itself to the House and give effect to what I perceive to be a desire by members of all parties in this House for a declaration that "O Canada" be the national anthem of Canada.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan):
That Bill C-220. an act respecting the national anthem of Canada, standing in the name of the hon. member for Simcoe South, be called this day on orders of the day, and that, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the bill be considered at second reading, referred to the Committee of the Whole, and considered at third reading, and that no later than 4 p.m. this day all questions necessary to dispose of the said bill be put to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Trudeau:: No. What are the words?


RISING OIL PRICES-CALL FOR COMMITTEE STUDY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Owing to the fact that Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about rising oil prices, while at the same time oil company profits continue to increase, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone):
That presidents of the various Canadian oil companies be invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and be allowed an opportunity to explain the profit picture of their companies and how
these profits are spent, and that Mr. T. C. Douglas, former NDP leader, now a director of a major oil company, be allowed to appear to explain his company's high profits.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Who is against Tommy Douglas?


CONDEMNATION OFCFL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CANADIAN ATHLETES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise to move a motion.
In view of the fact that the Canadian Football League has a designated import rule which discriminates against Canadian quarterbacks; and in view of the fact that the result of this rule is that outstanding Canadian athletes, such as Jamie Bone, are excluded from consideration by Canadian clubs and end up having to play for second-rate teams like the Dallas Cowboys; and in view of the fact that CFL Commissioner Gaudaur yesterday announced that the CFL has refused to change this rule, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House condemn the CFL for their failure to treat Canadian quarterbacks fairly, and instructs the minister to contact the CFL and make it clear that if this discrimination is not changed, the government will take strong measures, up to and including legislation if necessary, to force the CCFL-the CCF-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Knowles:: We are now the NDP.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -to force the CFL to abandon its totally unacceptable and ludicrous discrimination against Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
1 146

May 16, 1980


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent necessity concerning Dr. C. M. Kao, general secretary of the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan, who has recently been seized by the Taiwanese police, and also with respect to the fact that a member of his office staff was arrested last January and has been held in solitary confinement ever since, reportedly under the most inhuman treatment and with attempts to force her to confess to whatever she is told to say. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That the House respectfully requests the Secretary of State for External Affairs to review all available details of this case in order to determine whether a severe violation of human rights as defined under the Helsinki agreement, and police slate tactics, have and are taking place, and that the minister be respectfully asked to take whatever action may be within Canada's means to assist these individuals if a violation of human rights is indeed determined.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that some 92 fishermen in the province of Prince Edward Island now have to have servicing to their life rafts done in Halifax, at considerable extra expense, while up to this year they could get the servicing completed in Prince Edward Island, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That the Minister of Transport immediately make arrangements with the manufacturer. Beaufort Canada, to reinstate a service department for these life rafts on Prince Edward Island, so that the fishermen of P.E.I. will not suffer due to a thoughtless administrative decision by Beaufort 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.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the superb and distinguished contribution of the right hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the right hon. Joseph Clark on behalf of their respective national parties in the referendum campaign, and in view of the fact that both leaders have stated in clear, concise terms their respective party's stand on the referendum question, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons):
That this House of Commons applaud their actions during this crucial time in Canadian history and, indeed, lends its unanimous support to their continuing efforts in fostering Canadian unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: 1 suppose we have unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Blais:: The NDP said "No".


Madam Speaker:: We have not?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, concerning the deplorable mail conditions in Calgary North. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre):
That the Postmaster General and this government direct the Post Office to immediately commence regular mail service in all areas of Calgary North where delivery has been lacking for a period longer than 60 days.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 16, 1980

Oral Questions
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS	SPORTS


PLIGHT OF CUBANS FLEEING TO UNITED STATES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jim Schroder (Guelph):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Given the increasing number of Cuban citizens fleeing their country to the United States, and the inability of the international community to take action because these people cannot be classed as refugees under the United Nations' definition, and the deteriorating relationship that has come about between the United State and Cuba, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson):
That this House urge the Government of Canada to consult with the United States government, the Cuban government and other governments in the western hemisphere with a view to forming a consensus that would lead to the resolution of this tragic situation.


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 WORLD COMMUNITY
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas Islam has recently entered the fifteenth century since its founding, an event which is universally celebrated, and whereas Islam is one of the world's great religions, encompassing peoples of all cultures, and whereas Islam strives for a brotherly community transcending the superficial differences of race, history or nationality and is thus being implementary of the spirit of multiculturalism, 1 would move, seconded by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Bossy):
That this House take note of the contribution of Islam and Canadians of Islamic faith and wish them success in their continuing pursuits to give reality to a truly multicultural society that is Canada today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion would require the unanimous consent of the House before it could be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT ON SITE OF 1985 SUMMER GAMES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, 1, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of increasing costs, and the anxiety of the citizens of New Brunswick to have a decision made as soon as possible as to the site of the 1985 Summer Games, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That the house instruct the minister responsible for amateur sports and fitness to make up his mind and make the announcement before the Lakehead Games in 1981, so that the host community can commence planning.


Madam Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, unanimous consent is required before this motion can be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement by the Minister of Energy yesterday that the Q and M pipeline would go only as far as Quebec, can the right hon. gentleman please tell the House, and especially the people of Atlantic Canada, what factors have changed since his speech on energy before the Board of Trade in Halifax on January 25, 1980, when he promised, among other things, to "take immediate action for the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritimes , without making any mention of delay because of environmental studies, proven reserves off Atlantic Canada or federal assistance?
Since, in the Prime Minister's own immortal words, "like the railways of the 1880s, energy pipelines in the 1980s have the potential to be a steel link uniting the nation", my question to the right hon. gentleman is this: how can you link a nation when you stop at Quebec?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1 would suggest that the hon. member go back to the drawing board and check what the Prime Minister said in Halifax. I suggest, also, that it is quite inappropriate to try to put on the record a quotation which is not correct. If the hon. gentleman wants to get the right quote, we will answer his question.

May 16, 1980
Oral Questions


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I was really hoping for something more from the Prime Minister. 1 listened to the Minister of Energy in this House last night when he tried to answer the hon. member for South Shore-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 will recognize the hon. member if he asks a question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, that is why I deliberately did not put my question on such a fundamental matter of government policy to the Minister of Energy-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -who was drawing a red herring as a diversion from the fundamental question involved.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: 1 will quote from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald.


An hon. Member:: A point of order. Get on to the next speaker!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: No wonder you are not the minister of communications.


An hon. Member:: No wonder you were never one.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly ask his question forthwith, without any preamble. 1 have already allowed quite a long preamble on his first question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, 1 will direct a question either to the right hon. Prime Minister or his Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would like either of those gentlemen to tell me where my question differed, in terms of a fundamental promise made to Atlantic Canada, from what 1 am about to read, published by the Liberal Party of Canada in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald on Saturday, February 2, quoting the speech of the Prime Minister to the Board of Trade.
There would be a natural gas pipeline to ensure all Canadians-
Not Canadians who live in any one part of the country.
access to their resources. Liberals would take immediate action to begin negotiations for construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritimes. Initially it would carry natural gas east but when maritime supplies are ready, the pipeline would be like a natural gas railroad with a return delivery facility as well.
Would the minister tell me where I misstated the facts?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 am glad that in his further question the hon. member indeed has changed substantially the quote he was attributing to the Prime Minister. He will see in the record tomorrow, if he looks at Hansard, that there is a substantial difference between what he has now said and what he said in his previous question.
In case he has any doubt, I will read to him what has been stated by the Prime Minister and quoted by his own colleague from Nova Scotia who was speaking in the House yesterday and who said, quoting the Prime Minister, that the Prime Minister said in Halifax that Liberals "would take immediate action to begin negotiations for construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritimes."
This we did when we took office. I have already been in touch with the provinces concerned, and I indicated in the House yesterday that indeed one of the problems that we had to face, and which has been recognized by the National Energy Board, is that the environmental studies required have not been carried out to the satisfaction of the National Energy Board.
Second, before finally proceeding to a decision on the building of the pipeline, it was advisable to assess the resources that are available in terms of natural gas off Sable Island, and the government of New Brunswick, as recently as last week at a meeting 1 had with the government of New Brunswick, insisted on the position it had taken before the National Energy Board to the effect that all alternatives should be carefully examined before we embark definitively on this project.
We are still of the opinion that the gas pipeline to the maritimes is still the preferred option of this government, but we want to do it in an orderly way and make sure that the consumers and workers of the maritimes and the maritime provinces concerned will all benefit from it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. No questions of environmental studies were raised when this matter was mentioned and promised by the Prime Minister in January.
My question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who raises environmental studies, is really twofold. Why is such a fundamental question of government policy, i.e., a pipeline to Atlantic Canada, even placed before the National Energy Board, since we all know it is feasible and will need financial help like the railways needed it back in the 1880s.
Also, since he has had other capacities in earlier governments in terms of moving oil across this country, and was at one time minister of federal-provincial relations, can the minister tell this House how, in Atlantic Canada, you can dilute an alienation factor that is there, as it is in other parts of the country, when Atlantic Canada looks to James Bay, which did not have an environmental study at all and now is on-stream and producing power, and when the Government of Canada today is using environmental studies for the first time, which could go on along with the pipeline study and would not have to be used as a scapegoat?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I regret that the hon. member has to resort to such irresponsible statements as the one he has just made-


Mr. Andre:: He is right on, and you know it.
May 16, 1980


Marc Lalonde: -to try to support his argument. In terms of the James Bay area, which is under provincial control and jurisdiction, the hon. member should know that the government of Quebec did carry out environmental studies. They were carried out by the government of Quebec.
Second, as far as this particular project is concerned, I am amazed, again, that the hon. member would suggest that we would show no respect for the fact that the environmental concerns have not been taken into account appropriately, according to the National Energy Board and, second, that we should ignore and reject the point of view expressed quite clearly, again as recently as last week, by one of the maritime provinces, the government of New Brunswick, which has said that we should be carefully studying all the alternatives.
I am amazed that the hon. member would resort to that kind of argument on an issue which is so important. This pipeline is something for which we have argued and we will keep giving a high priority to it, but we will not do it by running roughshod over the concerns of provincial governments and by ignoring basic issues concerning the environment. 1 think that is a wise decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DATE NATURAL GAS WILL BE FLOWING INTO MARITIMES
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who has neatly skirted some of the pertinent decisions that should have been made, and promises that were made.
The minister is reported to have stated that he is optimistic that gas will be flowing into the maritime region by 1982-83, but he has also indicated that he does not expect the pipeline to Quebec will be completed by 1985. Can the minister explain this apparent discrepancy and, under those circumstances, how does he plan to get the gas to the maritime region by 1982-83 if the pipeline to Quebec City will not be completed until 1985?


Marc Lalonde: Indeed, Madam Speaker, it would be very hard to reconcile if I had ever said this, but I do not know where the hon. member got this particular information. 1 was in the House last night and, unless 1 was misquoted, 1 argued that, on the contrary, the realization of the pipeline to Quebec City should take place in 1981.
I said that the realization of that pipeline would help the eventual construction of a pipeline to the maritimes, by which time 1 would hope we would have had the information concerning environmental issues and on the reserves of natural gas off Sable Island. At that time, the Energy Board would be in a position to make recommendations to the cabinet on the basis of the full knowledge of the facts, including environmental factors.
Oral Questions
Also, the fact that the pipeline would be constructed as far as Quebec City would allow for an early completion of this line. 1 do not think I have ever spoken about 1985 being the deadline for the Quebec pipeline. If there is such a report, it is certainly inaccurate.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Can I take it, then, that the minister is committing himself to the statement that he has made, that gas will be flowing to the maritime region by 1982-83, which would naturally be an extension of the pipeline from Quebec City which, as the minister has just stated, should be completed by 1981?
1 would like confirmation of that, however, from the minister; and in case the minister is not aware of the commitments that were made by his government, by his leader, and apparently by every other member of the Liberal caucus during the campaign, I have right here a copy of the ad which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald.
At that time, the commitment was made not only to extend the pipeline to the maritime region but to make it reversible. I would ask the minister to secure that commitment, and to assure the Atlantic region that he will indeed see that that pipeline is reversible so that Atlantic Canada will have an opportunity to be an exporter of energy, should they be in that fortunate position.


Marc Lalonde: Again, the hon. member is trying to distort the answer I gave him a minute ago. He wants me to say there will be a reversible pipeline by 1982-83, whether or not gas is found off Sable Island. If the exploration proves negative and there are no reserves of commercial value over there, surely he would not argue that we must build that reversible pipeline by 1982-83.
It might be that we will have to build a pipeline with reversible capacity, or provide for the eventual capacity for reversible flow, but that is a very different thing from building a reversible pipeline. Indeed, what we indicated during the campaign and in the Halifax speech in which I quoted the Prime Minister is that we would begin negotiations to take immediate action for the construction.
Indeed, we began those negotiations as soon as we took office. We have the report from the National Energy Board. We will have to ensure that all factors are taken into account again and that the whole project will be to the benefit of the workers and consumers in the maritime provinces. That is our objective, that is our priority and that is what we will keep working at.


Harvie Andre: With whom are you negotiating?


Marc Lalonde: I want to assure the hon. member that we will keep doing this. As to providing a specific date at the present time, again 1 think it would be irresponsible, before we have the reports and know how things have been going in terms of submissions by the concerned corporations.
1150
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE

May 16, 1980


POST OFFICE-REPORT OF CONCILIATION BOARD-GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Last night the report of the conciliation board studying the dispute between the government and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers was handed down to the two parties.
I realize the minister probably has not had time to study the report in great detail, but can he indicate whether or not he intends to reopen negotiations with the union, using this report as a basis for negotiations and, more importantly, will the minister now commit himself to a meeting of himself, the Postmaster General and representatives of the union before the union is in a position to strike?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, officials of the interested departments, including Treasury Board, are presently studying the report. The labour relations committee will be meeting this afternoon. The Postmaster General will be present at that meeting, as will the Minister of Labour and myself. 1 presume we will be making announcements after that meeting as to our posture and what further meetings we intend to have at that time.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, in this is a serious matter. They are in a position now to take a strike vote, and 1 would imagine that is what is immediately taking place and that within seven days we could be in a strike situation.


An hon. Member:: We know that.


Sidney James Parker: Is the minister prepared to meet immediately with this group, to sit down with the basis of that report and try to reach a compromise at this very, very crucial time?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that 1 answered that question. Obviously, it is a matter of the highest priority with this government. That is why a meeting has been convened for late this afternoon between the interested members and other officials involved. 1 can assure the hon. member that it being a matter of the highest priority, we will do everything possible to try to avert a strike.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, in view of the seriousness of this matter-


An hon. Member:: You have already said that.


Sidney James Parker: -we are getting letters from everyone throughout the province and throughout the country. I want to ask the minister if he is prepared, on a daily basis, to report to this House as to what is taking place with these negotiations.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, this government has a policy of open government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: I can assure the hon. member and all other members of this House that all relevant information which should be made available to parliamentarians will be made available.


Walter David Baker: It is known as open-ended government.


BANK OF CANADA
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and the first acting minister of finance, perhaps I could go to the second acting minister of finance, the President of the Treasury Board.
My question centres on the rather remarkable treasury bill auction which occurred yesterday when the Bank of Canada resisted the fall of interest rates in this country. Bearing in mind that when the government took power, interest rates in Canada were 2.5 points on the treasury bill level behind those in the United States, and now they are 4 points ahead of the comparable treasury bill level in the United States, would the President of the Treasury Board indicate to the House why this is an appropriate course for Canada to be following?


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member that indeed what he has said is correct, and that the governor of the Bank of Canada has been following a policy of orderly transition and changes in the interest rates. We are very happy to see the fact that since this government has taken power the interest rates have come down some 3 percentage points.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again perhaps I could go to the President of the Treasury Board who, after all, is designated by the Prime Minister as the Acting Minister of Finance in the House.


An hon. Member:: That was a mistake.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the fact that the parliamentary secretary has totally ignored the fact that up to the present time the government has claimed it had virtually no alternative but to allow interest rates to rise in this country because of the rising interest rates in the United States, would the President of the Treasury Board indicate why the government condoned the Bank of Canada action yesterday?
It was described by the governor of the Bank of Canada as one in which the "market pressure was resisted by the Bank of Canada, which acted vigorously, particularly in the last week, to moderate the rate of decline"-in our interest rates. It intervened to the extent of actually causing overnight money,
May 16, 1980	COMMONS DEBATES	___ _________________________LLrJ
Oral Questions
that is, the cost of funds, to go to 18 per cent to 20 per cent	this particular case, we happen to have a very brilliant econojust before the treasury bill levels were set yesterday.	mist as a parliamentary secretary


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, 1 think the hon. member


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear! should realize that the Bank of Canada has followed a policy
of moderation and smoothing of fluctuations of interest rates Mr. Trudeau: -and I think the hon. member should not for a very long period of time now.	complain about getting incomplete answers.


An hon. Member:: You said it was floating.


John Leslie Evans: In fact, during the period in which the government of members opposite was in power, interest rates were brought from a situation where they were above those in the United States to a position of some 2.5 to 3 percentage points below those in the United States.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is not true.


John Leslie Evans: That means the Bank of Canada in fact resisted pressures of the upward move of interest rates then, and the Bank of Canada is now following a policy of an orderly reduction in interest rates, which is in the best interests of the country.


Walter David Baker: This is terrible.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker-


Mr. Chretien:: Strike two; now he is going for strike three.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, as it is obvious the acting minister of finance is abdicating his role as acting minister of finance, perhaps 1 could go to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister knows, the parliamentary secretary has misled the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In fact, on March 5 the Treasury bill rate in Canada was 2.5 points behind the comparable level in the United States. Would the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether he is willing to have the appropriate reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs so that that committee can look into the interest rate structure in Canada, such as the Clark government had under way in the previous Parliament?


Mr. Foster:: And look what happened to them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must take exception to the remarks of the hon. member. He seems to object to any answer that does not satisfy his own point of view.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is not true.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly, the parliamentary secretary of any minister is enabled by this House to answer in the absence of the minister. Generally, he is closer to the minister than the acting minister because of the very nature of the portfolio. In


VETERANS AFFAIRS o


QUEBEC REFERENDUM-ABILITY OF PATIENTS IN STE. ANNE DE BELLEVUE HOSPITAL TO VOTE MAY 20
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He is surely aware of the fact that several veterans at the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital in Quebec will only be able to vote at home. Has the minister taken all necessary steps to provide means of transport so they may vote next Tuesday?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, this has been brought to my attention. People who are on the voters' list have a right to vote. Being in the hospital is not a restriction; they can vote. I might say that for some unknown reason there has been a group of veteran patients in the Ste. Anne de Bellevue Hospital who have been denied the privilege of having their names placed on the revised voters' list. I regret that very much, but those who are able to vote will be assisted to vote in the polling stations set up in the hospital.
Also, 1 will conclude by saying that our staff in the hospital and the Department of Veterans Affairs will do everything possible to get those who decide to vote, to vote; those who are not cared for by relatives or other people.


SALE OF SURPLUS FUELS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I should like to go back to the question of the maritime pipeline. 1 think it is assumed that all of us here are trying to get energy into the maritimes, particularly, at the lowest possible price.
Would the minister consider putting a reference before the National Energy Board, along with the present study, to see whether there is a market in the port cities of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces sufficient to warrant going to the producer companies in the surplus areas of propane and LPG fuels, where they are offering this very fine type of fuel at distress

May 16, 1980
Oral Questions
prices; these are the North Sea producers, North Africa, Venezuela and through the Persian Gulf?
Would the minister consider putting that as an additional term of reference to the National Energy Board, to see if there is a market and then get the Commodities Credit Corporation or PetroCan to deal with these producers to see whether we can get access to a 20-year contract for this cheap fuel?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the report of the National Energy Board has given extensive consideration, as a matter of fact, to the markets that would be accessible to natural gas via a pipeline to Quebec City and the maritimes.
As to the suggestion made by the hon. member, 1 will take note of it and I will certainly give it very careful consideration. I think it is a very worth-while suggestion. I will consult with my officials and examine whether, indeed, there would be some advantage in asking the National Energy Board to give consideration to the point raised by the hon. member.
As the hon. member knows, however, although there may be some surplus, there are countries like Algeria, for instance, that are asking a lot more for their LPG these days, and the question of whether it could be competitive would certainly be a matter that would need to be looked into. I will certainly give consideration to the hon. member's suggestion.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In light of the fact that Chrysler Canada announced this week that Canadian buyers of trucks and cars would not be receiving the same cash rebate of $200 to $1,000 that is being offered to buyers in the United States, and in light of the fact that the latest consumer price index increase is due in part to higher car prices, will the minister take steps to ensure that the same rebate program is offered to Canadian consumers?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I will look into this and get back to the hon. member. I think it is interesting to note that the total consumer price index in Canada increased by .7 per cent, seasonally adjusted, from the March level. This is appreciably lower than the 1.1 per cent advance registered in the immediately preceding month. Also, the 12-month rise is down marginally from the 12-month rise in the preceding month. I am surprised that the hon. member did not recognize that.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I am glad the minister had the chance to make his statement to the House. In view of the fact that the amount of money coming from this government is much higher, proportionally, than the money coming from the United States government to Chrysler Canada, and in view of
the fact that the minister has known that Chrysler Canada was not offering these rebates to us for some length of time, will the minister get in touch immediately with Chrysler Canada to make sure that we, as Canadian consumers, get just as good a deal from Chrysler, especially since it is getting such a good deal from us?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am very glad my hon. friend in the NDP has officially recognized that we have obtained a good deal from Chrysler for Canadian workers and the Canadian people generally. I would like to make sure that is on the record.
Contrary to what my hon. friend says, we are not giving Chrysler money; we are not loaning them money directly; we are not giving them a grant; but we will be putting in place loan guarantees only in 1982, and only if it meets certain important terms and conditions.
As I have said to my hon. friend, 1 will be very happy to go into the matter he has raised. I must say that I was not aware of the details he has provided on this rebate program; but it is important that it be confirmed by the NDP that we have obtained a good deal from Chrysler for Canadian workers and the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[Translation\


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE TO QUEBEC NOT POSTPONED
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and has to do with the extension of the pipeline to Quebec. Given the great many jobs-some 30,000 person-years, they say-created to carry out this project and also the economic effects that a market of about $1.1 billion represent, for Quebec, has the minister obtained guarantees from Quebec that there will not be any undue and unwarranted delay, as was the case in Boisbriand, in this project?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, indeed I found deplorable the delays incurred in the implementation of this project, at least as regards the section between St-Lazare, Quebec, and Boisbriand, since it would otherwise have been possible to provide access to natural gas to tens of thousands of Montreal area residents and homes as early as this fall. The agencies concerned within the government of Quebec did not give this issue enough priority to allow for the completion of the project this year, at least as far as Boisbriand.
On the other hand, it should be noted that in its white paper the PQ government heralds access to natural gas in Quebec as being a very high priority. I therefore hope that Quebec
May 16, 1980

authorities and agencies will take appropriate action so that this project can be accomplished without further delay and Quebeckers can use natural gas within the proposed time frame, that the project be completed during 1981. 1 count on the full co-operation of the Quebec government in this matter.


CIVIL DEFENCE
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister responsible for planning and policy regarding civil defence, specifically the Prime Minister in this case.
In view of the concerns expressed by the Prime Minister, by the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, by the Prime Minister of Japan, that we are entering a dangerous decade fraught with instabilities and deteriorating super power relations, given the prediction by a U.S. congressional committee that in the event of a nuclear attack on United States targets only, there would be up to two million casualties in Canada, and recognizing the acceleration of civil defence planning among those nations who pose a threat, as well as among our allies, is the Prime Minister prepared to place a new emphasis on civil defence policies and planning and increase the budget for civil defence in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 have not had notice of the question. I am periodically briefed on the state of our civil defence. I know the structure is in place and I know that the provincial and municipal authorities, which are essential to the setting up of this structure, are co-operating. 1 have no cause now, nor have 1 received a request, to believe that there is need for increased funding. But I will look at the suggestion of the hon. member and make a decision on that basis.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I accept the Prime Minister's response and anticipate a positive investigation. Specifically, 1 think he will find that the structures, while they might be in place, are decentralized to the point of chaos and that, in fact, the budgets have been decreased substantially over the past few years.
In view of the fact that the Soviet Union spent an estimated $65 billion on civil defence in the last ten years, that the Chinese possess a tunnel network capable of sheltering most city populations in a few minutes, that the French Senate called this week for urgent construction of atomic shelters because of heightened risk of nuclear war, and even United States cities are formulating contingency plans for the evacuation of inhabitants of their major cities, and in view of the reality that Canada has no shelter policy for Canadians, will the Prime Minister inform the House what measures are
Oral Questions
planned for Canadian cities in the event of a nuclear crisis and, in particular, for cities like Vancouver that sit in the shadow of military and industrial targets at close proximity in Seattle?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will see if there is not a report which can be released and which may perhaps contain an update of the situation in civil defence. The hon. member complains about its decentralization character. Of course, he is aware-because of his interest in it-that this is the very nature of civil defence, that it must be decentralized. It has been structured on that basis to ensure that in the event of disruption of any one centre, the other centres can continue to operate and carry out their duties.
In a case of the government itself, a former prime minister, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, had constructed at Carp, not far from Ottawa, an area wherein the government could be carried on. There is provision there for not only the Governor General but the Prime Minister to remain in residence. I had the pleasure of visiting that underground complex some years ago.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: is there a pool and an $80,000 Cadillac?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 will see if we can make room there for the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville, who certainly would be a very pleasant companion in such a place.


FISHERIES
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who certainly knows how to talk tough to the provinces when that is required. 1 wonder if he is prepared to manifest the same degree of toughness with the Americans, now that it seems evident they have shelved for this year ratification of the east coast treaty.
My question to the minister is, in my estimation, no longer hypothetical: what steps is the government taking to protect the interests of the Canadian fishermen on the east coast of Canada in the absence of ratification of the treaty by the U.S. Senate? What steps is the government taking to ensure that these very important stocks, specifically the scallop stocks, are protected from the evident overfishing now taking place by the Americans?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, no later than yesterday morning 1 was discussing this issue with the American ambassador who was paying the usual courtesy visit. We reviewed this whole matter.
Also my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, informed me yesterday that in his first meeting with Secretary of State Muskie he had raised this very issue. The Canadian government's interest has been very clearly indicat-

May 16, 1980
Oral Questions
ed to the United States Administration. As to whether the Senate will proceed, it is difficult for us to negotiate directly with the U.S. Senate, obviously.
As to the steps taken, while not prejudging whether the Senate will or will not ratify in the coming weeks, the fact is that we have made it very clear to the United States that no longer can we hold our fishermen back and see the level of the American catch increase, to our disadvantage. We had hoped that the treaty would be ratified by this time and that both sides would practice good conservation. We cannot hold our fishermen in a position that penalizes them in relation to their American counterparts.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could put a question to the Secretary of State of External Affairs. Last week he gaVe the House an undertaking that he would take this matter up with Secretary of State Muskie. He has obviously already done that. Can he report to the House on the outcome of his meeting with Secretary Muskie? May I also say to the minister, by way of a question, that the Americans are always talking about fraternity and friendship toward us. Did the minister tell his U.S. counterparts that this would be a tangible way for the U.S. Congress and the U.S. people to express their friendship and fraternity with Canada, by getting on with ratification of the treaty we negotiated in good faith?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, Mr. Muskie is no longer in the American House, so he is not able to speak on behalf of Congress. He now speaks for and deals with the administration. I made the strongest possible representations to him during our meeting.
The prospects for the treaty at the moment in the U.S. Senate are uncertain. The U.S. government, however, is certainly under no illusion about how high a priority we place on this treaty. My colleague and 1, and other ministers, are formulating plans for dealing with the present situation.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I want to follow the line of questioning put to the right hon. Prime Minister by the hon. member for York-Peel. is the Prime Minister prepared to confirm that when his government took office on March 5, the interest rates on treasury bills in Canada stood at 13.68 per cent, and that the comparable U.S. rates stood at 16 per cent, some 2.5 per cent higher than ours? Is he prepared to confirm that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as you know, statistical questions are not in order. I would be happy to attempt to answer this one by asking for time and inquiring into it. I will have the answer sent directly to the hon. member by Statistics Canada.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the answer. I think the Prime Minister will probably find that this will be confirmed, but I was asking for his confirmation as head of the government. The interest rate on treasury bills in Canada presently stands at 13.09 per cent, while the comparable U.S. rate is 9 per cent, a considerable amount lower than Canada, and Canada seems to be at some disadvantage.
Given that situation would the Prime Minister consider speaking to the Minister of Finance, if necessary, or take some steps himself to arrange for the convening of the standing committee and arrange for the appearance before it of the Minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada, so that these matters can be cleared up?
1 ask that question because this is a matter that the government was considering. Would he give it favourable consideration now, and indicate to the House the attitude of the government having those two people appear, so that we can continue the study of the distressing interest rates situation and the differential between Canada and the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as far as the facts are concerned, I repeat that 1 do not know, but I take the hon. member's word if he says that figures in the United States and Canada stand as they do, then I assume they do. If he wants to argue the point of why one country should have a higher rate than the other, I suppose it can be tied to the state of the economy in both countries.
It should be clear to the hon. member that the United States have entered a serious recession, which Canada has not yet entered. We are concerned, of course, with the effect if might have on us. This is a matter of economic argument and discussion. In the last two days, the party opposite was free to ask any minister to appear in the House and to ask them questions, it is my understanding that they have not invited the Minister of Finance to discuss these very questions. I will convey to him the concern of the hon. member, but I am sure his answer will be, "I was there; 1 was available. Why did they not ask me questions, rather than wait for the day that I am not there?"


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary to those questions to the Prime Minister. Since he does not know how our interest rates have changed over time and how the American interest rates have changed, i should like to ask him a direct question.
Governor Bouey said yesterday that it was the policy-I see him pointing somewhere else to another brilliant economist: 1 am quite satisfied to ask him, and 1 am sure he is competent to answer this question. The Governor of the Bank of Canada said yesterday that it was now the policy of the Bank of Canada to stop Canadian interest rates from falling and to keep them up at an artificial level.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister if that is the policy of his government at a time when unemployment figures announced on Tuesday showed a rise, and when we have had 49 months of unemployment at over 7 per cent.
May 16, 1980


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member suggested that I was pointing at another brilliant economist. I would suggest he should be more modest and hear the answer from the parliamentary secretary.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, as has been clear from previous statements, the policy of the Bank of Canada traditionally had been to moderate extreme fluctuations in the interest rate. That has been the policy, it continues to be the policy, and if it had not been for the policy of the Bank of Canada in the past to moderate upward changes in the interest rate, the interest rate in Canada would have exceeded or have continued to exceed that in the United States, which went far higher than that in Canada over the last year.
The policy of the Bank of Canada is to moderate interest rate changes so that we have an orderly market in this country, and that is the policy the Bank of Canada is continuing to follow.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, perhaps one could say that brilliance, like moderation, lies in the eyes of the beholder. My supplementary question is to the President of the Treasury Board. 1 would like the President of the Treasury Board to reflect on the fact that our artificially high interest rates are causing a run on Canada Savings Bonds which this week amounted to $345 million.
Given the policy of the governor of the Bank of Canada in propping up the interest rate, what is the policy now of the President of the Treasury Board, given the fact that this run on savings bonds is causing tremendous problems in debt management for his government.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I can assure you that in looking for brilliance, I am looking down this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: That is barren ground.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You will not find it there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Clearly, this question is one which should be addressed to the Minister of Finance.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You are the acting minister of Finance.


Donald James Johnston: The Minister of Finance is not here today. The parliamentary secretary has given very complete answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: A number of us, particularly myself, Madam Speaker, have been in this House for two days answering questions in Committee of the Whole. As, the Prime Minister
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
has pointed out, I do not recall any suggestion that the Minister of Finance should appear; but I am confident that the Minister of Finance will be pleased to respond to the questions put by the hon. gentleman on his return to the House next week.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the fact that the banning of 1.5 litre size of soft drink bottles has caused uncertainty to distributors, bottlers, retailers and consumers, what steps has the minister taken to come to a long-term, responsible solution of this problem?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I intend to introduce regulations under the Hazardous Products Act which will allow sales of 1.5 litre size of soft drink bottles of an improved safety performance. These bottles will have to pass the department's drop and drill tests. These bottles will also have to have a bilingual label indicating some of the dangers if they are not handled carefully.


PRIVILEGE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning a remark made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) who declared rather loudly recently that a motion under Standing Order 43 could not receive unanimous consent from the government because of failure to consult him.
It seems to me that this is a clear infringement on the privileges of any member of this House, whether they are on that side or this side of the House. In particular, he is speaking of his department, but is he trying to tell this House, or a member in this House, that we have to go to him, grovel at his feet and ask him if we have the privilege of moving a Standing Order 43 motion with which he happens to agree? That is an absolutely ridiculous, foolish and incredible statement, yet he made it in this House less than an hour ago.
I should like to say that my privileges are being interfered with if I have to grovel at the minister's feet or at the feet of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-even if he is out at Carp or wherever he happens to be-or for that matter at the feet of anyone else on that side of the House. I feel that I have a legitimate question of privilege because my rights as a private member to move a Standing Order 43 motion for consideration by all members in this House, without bias and with sensible

May 16, 1980
Privilege-Mr. MacGuigan
consideration, is being hindered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
If I have a legitimate question of privilege, I would therefore reserve my right to move a motion that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: On proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 43, the Chair only determines whether there is unanimous consent. That is the only thing that is relevant to motions under Standing Order 43.
MR. MacGUIGAN-COMMENT OF HON. MEMBER FOR LEEDS-GRENVILLE


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I believe I have a question of privilege because the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) opposite has misstated what I shouted across to him in the House.
I have never challenged his right to present any motion in the House, including a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I was suggesting that if he wanted my consent he might let me know in advance so that I could consider the terms of his motion. If he did not understand that, then he has not spent as much time in this House as he should have.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On the same question of privilege. Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 have not given the hon. member the floor. 1 do now give him the floor. The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, the minister has told the House that I did not listen to what he said. I do not know whether Hansard will pick it up, but I do know that when he yelled "No" in a very loud voice and when 1 asked him why, he said, "Because you did not consult". The minister made it very clear that that was why. In other words, he laid down the regulation that those of us on this side of the House must consult with him if we wish unanimous consent.
That was the point in my previous question of privilege. He has twisted what he said himself into something else entirely in order to try and make it look as if I am raising something that is not so. But he knows what he said. 1 hope the record will show what he said, and he is very definitely infringing on the privileges of members of this House.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I think one thing ought to be made clear. What the hon. member just said is not totally accurate. The minister said that if the hon. member wanted to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43, he was absolutely free to do so on any subject at all, insignificant though it might be. We are used to hearing silly motions in this House. However, the minister said that as far as he was concerned, if the hon.
member wants the minister's consent and not the unanimous consent of the House and if the minister refuses to give his consent, logically unanimity no longer exists. The minister would rather be consulted in advance because in the field of external affairs, most matters are touchy. It is a simple matter of politeness and courtesy.
I do not want to compel my colleague to be courteous and polite, but I would not want him to feel offended if he does not have the minister's consent on issues of external affairs. What the minister said in no way infringes the privileges of the hon. member or of other members of the House. Progressive Conservative members have the right to move any motion they wish under Standing Order 43, it is their privilege as it is the privilege of all members of the House. We have nothing against that. However they should not take exception to the fact that there is no unanimous consent or that they are not getting the consent of a particular member or minister. Every member on either side of the House has the privilege of answering yes or no to these motions.
Again, Madam Speaker, all members are absolutely equal. So if it is true that the hon. member is at liberty to move any motion he wants, insignificant as it may be, it is equally true that all members, be they ministers or Progressive Conservative or New Democrat members are all free to say yes or no. That is the way the Standing Orders of this House are set up.


Madam Speaker:: It is clear that we are engaging in a debate on what a minister or a member said or did not say. Therefore this does not constitute a question of privilege.


MR. HOVDEBO-ROGERS PASS PROJECT- REMARKS OF MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding an answer given to this House by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). This was an answer to a question about corporate blackmail by Canadian Pacific Railway in threatening to freeze the $300 million Rogers Pass project until Ottawa agrees to reverse the Crows-nest rate for grain shipments. The minister's answer as it appeared in Hansard yesterday is as follows:
Madam Speaker, one of my dedicated assistants was in touch with the CPR this morning, and I am somewhat amused by the result of that call as the CP rail authorities maintain that they have been misquoted on this subject. So, lor a change it is interesting to see that businessmen can also be misquoted. This is not what they meant to say.
We have confirmed that the statement which I used yesterday was not a misquote, that the several reporters who were present all came away with a similar understanding. There has been no retraction from Canadian Press, and the Edmonton Journal had an almost identical story yesterday. It therefore appears that the Canadian Pacific Railways misled the minister in suggesting they had been misquoted and that the
May 16, 1980

Minister of Transport inadvertently misled this House by accepting their word.
There seems to be little doubt that what went on was a classic case of corporate blackmail by Canadian Pacific in its attempt to establish transportation policy themselves rather than leave that to the prerogative of the Government of Canada. The minister was misled by Canadian Pacific; he in turn inadvertently misled the House. 1 believe this is a legitimate case of privilege and if you so find, Madam Speaker, I am prepared to move:
That this matter be put before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections who could ask Canadian Pacific to appear before the committee to explain why they misled the House and how they can justify such blackmail of the Canadian people.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, 1 might just say a few words. This discussion illustrates the difficulty with conversations. What I heard from my assistant and what he heard from the president of Canadian Pacific is very difficult to assess, but I think the substance is clear. Canadian Pacific is confronted with a dilemma. On the one hand, their forecasts of the requirements for traffic in the area are such that they think the tunnel should be built. On the other hand, their revenue situation, presumably because of the Crowsnest Pass rate, is such that they as a private enterprise feel that the returns will not justify the expenditure. This is the dilemma they face. I was trying to report on that. I am sorry if I was a bit humorous. Sometimes, it works, sometimes it doesn't.


Madam Speaker:: It seems that here again we are discussing whether a member of Parliament is satisfied with an answer given by a minister. This does not constitute a question of privilege. Moreover, the motion presented at the end of the hon. member's intervention is a substantive one, that kind of motion which can be used to refer questions to any other committee. 1 suspect the hon. member knows that.


MR. SCOTT (HAMILTON-WENTWORTH)-PROPOSED EXPANSION OF MOUNT HOPE AIRPORT-REMARKS OF MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I rise very briefly on a question of privilege. During a somewhat spirited discussion in the House of Commons last night between the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and myself, I once again tried to put on the record of this House that the previous Conservative government's commitment of $45 million to the expansion, development and upgrading of Hamilton civic airport was in fact a "go" decision.
The Minister of Transport, I suspect quite inadvertently, certainly not deliberately because I know he would not want deliberately to mislead the House, suggested that the $45 million was simply a commitment in principle; not a firm commitment by the former minister of transport and president of the treasury board, but just a commitment in principle. He suggested that if 1 had proof otherwise, I could bring it to the House and offer him that proof.
Privilege-Mr. G. Scott
1 was not a member of the Privy Council and I was not sitting in cabinet when that decision was made. There are other members in this House who were privy to that decision. I would just like respectfully to suggest to the Minister of Transport that that $45 million was a very firm commitment by the Government of Canada to go ahead with expansion and upgrading of Hamilton civic airport.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, as I was at least one of the participants involved in the previous government with respect to this decision, I naturally read with interest the comments last night of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), particularly those in response to questions put by my colleague whose question of privilege is now before us. 1 thought 1 might shed some light on this.
1 think we are engaged in a rather unfortunate twisting of terminology. The truth is that on January 25, on behalf of the then minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the then minister of labour announced that there would be a major expansion of the Mount Hope airport at Hamilton at an estimated cost of $45 million. He went on to state that as a result of the decision, and I quote:
-Transport Canada will shortly request proposals for consulting services involving the design of the terminal building and other related facilities.
Yesterday the Minister of Transport indicated, to use his words, that the decision of the previous cabinet was a decision in principle by the cabinet, and there was a heavy inference that it never received Treasury Board approval. In fact, much to my amazement, the Minister of Transport stated that if it had received such approval, it would be in the present estimates because these are the estimates of the previous administration.
The Minister of Transport is a veteran not only of the House but of previous governments. He knows that main estimates are prepared literally months if not a year in advance. The main estimates that we now have before us are estimates that were finalized in mid-December. The decision to go ahead with the Mount Hope expansion was made in January. It was naturally anticipated that as the funds were required, there would be supplementary estimates needed in order to cover that expenditure.
As far as the previous government is concerned, it is most important to note that cabinet approval in principle was obtained for an investment in the order of $45 million for the Hamilton airport development. Cabinet had also authorised the Department of Transport to proceed with the planning for the airport and to consult with the airline industry, the province of Ontario, adjacent municipalities and the general public in the course of this planning.
The justification for asking Treasury Board-and this has already been put into Hansard-simply for $220,000, which was something to be charged against vote 65, air transportation, capital expenditure, was to get the matter moving at the earliest possible opportunity. The agreement in principle was there. Unless the present government now decides to reverse

May 16, 1980
Privilege-Mr. G. Scott
that agreement in principle, it was fully intended that that airport expansion should go ahead.
1 would think that it was anticipated we would have to find within the appropriate envelope system the $45 million that would be needed to ensure that that airport could be built within the time-frame that, incidentally, was referred to in the press release to which 1 have referred. The press release stated: -construction is planned to begin in 1980-81 and should be completed by 1984-85.
In short, I think it is unfortunate that the Minister of Transport should have shed some doubt about a firm commitment made by the previous government to go ahead with this airport project at an approximate cost of $45 million. Treasury Board agreed to the only thing it had been asked to agree to up to that point, that is to say, to approve the $220,000 funding for the consulting services which was needed to expedite the project. But it was clearly understood that the Department of Transport would then follow up with more definitive plans which could, presumably, be cleared subsequently by the Treasury Board unless, and 1 emphasize this, Madam Speaker, the government of the day decided to reverse the commitment it had entered into in principle during our administration to go ahead and build the airport.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my contribution will be very short indeed. We will let the people of Hamilton decide who is right and who is wrong in these matters. I repeat what I said yesterday. To the best of my knowledge, first, this was an election promise, one of many others. Unfortunately, if I were to honour half of the promises which were made during those months of January and February, I would be out of business for the next three years. So, first of all, it was an election promise. Second, it received the beatification of cabinet "in principle". Third, it was not sent to the Treasury Board to go through the rigours of analysis except for the part which had to do with the consultant services; we agree on that. Finally, if the amount of money was in the envelope I must have looked at a different envelope because 1 did not see it there.
So we will leave it at that and the people of Hamilton will judge the amount of importance, the credibility, to be given to that $50 million promise. However, 1 want to promise on my own, and I said this repeatedly yesterday, that I have the best of intentions, the best of motives, the best of dispositions with respect to the Hamilton airport, the Mount Hope airport. I mean well. I just want to be responsible and do what needs to be done. If it is $50 million, so it will be. I just do no want to be tied because I think it would be irresponsible on my part to be tied to a figure, either this one or the one previously mentioned.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a point of clarification-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think 1 will rule on this question. I think I have heard a sufficient number of interventions.
[ Translation]
I believe that again we are dealing with a debate. It is clearly a debate and therefore not a question of privilege. In addition, 1 should like to point out to hon. members who have risen so far in this debate that 1 listened to them to the end but that it became very obvious early in their intervention that they were dealing with remarks made last night. Consequently, hon. members had every opportunity of giving me notice of their question of privilege, as our rules require. I had to listen to them today because, of course, the proceedings in progress can give rise to a question of privilege. But that is not the case in this instance, and as a consequence 1 should have been grateful for getting notice of that question of privilege.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I naturally acknowledge your decision on the question of privilege but I think it raises a matter of order that the Minister of Transport should have left the impression that all we have been talking about is some type of vague election promise. I am not reflecting on your decision but I want to make it clear as a point of order that the reference from which I was reading is to be found in a document in the minister's own department.
There should be absolutely no confusion in his mind as to what took place under the previous government. Therefore, I ask that he table that document, which is dated February 7, 1980, is addressed to the Treasury Board and sets out this matter in its entirety. I believe the House will see that it was not an election promise but a firm cabinet decision being acted upon. It is most misleading for the Minister of Transport to indicate otherwise.


Madam Speaker:: It is not up to the hon. member to correct Hansard. If he feels the minister has not given him an adequate answer, or if the minister feels he should correct Hansard because he has not been properly reported, he could do so himself.

[ Translation]


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill C-29, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the March 31, 1981.
May 16, 1980



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Madam,
1 have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Jean Beetz, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today. May 16, at 12.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to a bill.
I have the honour to be.
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council) presented the following message from His Excellency the Governor General:
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons a certified copy of an approved order in council appointing the Hon. Pierre De Bane, Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the Hon. Yvon Pinard, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, the Hon. Donald Johnston, President of the Treasury Board and the Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove, Minister of Public Works, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the purposes and under the provisions of chapter H-9 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, intituled: an act respecting the House of Commons.

Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) 1 wish to table a document entitled "Canadian Position with Respect to Conventions and Recommendations adopted at the 61st, 62nd (Maritime), 63rd and 64th Sessions of the International Labour Conference in Geneva of June, 1976, October, 1976, June, 1977 and June, 1978".


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 190, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 337, 338, 340, 352, 363, 367, 369, 566, 604, 617, 645,670, 700, 768.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits for Canadian Patents and Development Ltd.?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write off?


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: In so far as Canadian Patents and Development Limited is concerned:
		Revenue	Profit/Loss
(a)	1977	$1,049,963	$ 1,945(b)	1978	$ 898,278	$ (129,463)1977	1978(a)	$ 250,000	$ 250,000(b)	Nil	Nil(c)	$ 296,199	$ 296,199CANARCH LIMITED


Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) What was the (i) authorized (ii) issued capital of Canarch Limited at the time of purchase by the government (b) has there been any change in such capital?
2.	What is the present retained earnings in the company?


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	(a) Authorized:	50,000 6 per cent non-cumulative,
redeemable preferred shares at $10 par value.
50,000 common, no par value Issued:	1,000 common for $ 1,000.
(b) No change in capitalization
2.	Nil. This is not an active company.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) What was the (i) authorized (ii) issued capital of Canadian General Atomic Corporation Limited at the time of purchase by the government (b) has there been any change in such capital?
2.	What is the present retained earnings in the company?
\

May 16, 1980
Order Paper Questions


Gérald Laniel: In so far as the Department of Industry. Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	(a) Authorized:	50,000 common, no par value
Issued:	9 shares at SI
(b) No change in capitalization.
2.	Nil. Not an active company since 1966.


Mr. Elerbert: 1.	(a) What was the (i) authorized (ii) issued capital of Canadair Services Limited at the time of purchase by the government (b) has there been any change in such capital?
2.	What is the present retained earnings in the company?


Gérald Laniel: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1. (a) Authorized:	50,000 common, no par value
Issued:	1,000
(b) No change to report in capitalization.
2.	Present retained earnings: $245,545.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) What was the (i) authorized (ii) issued capital of Canadair International Limited at the time of purchase by the government (b) has there been any change in such capital?
2.	What is the present retained earnings in the company?


Gérald Laniel: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	(a) Authorized:	1,000,000 common, no par value
Issued:	1,005 for $1,005.
(b) No change in capitalization.
2.	Nil. This is not an active company.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) What was the (i) authorized (ii) issued capital of Canadair Incorporated at the time of purchase by the government (b) has there been any change in such capital?
2.	What is the present retained earnings in the company?


Gérald Laniel: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	Nil.
Canadair Incorporated did not exist at the time of the government acquisition of Canadair Ltd.
2.	The present level of retained earnings by Canadair Inc.: $102,579.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) What was the (i) authorized (ii) issued capital of Canadair GMBH at the time of purchase by the government (b) has there been any change in such capital?
2.	What is the present retained earnings in the company?


Gérald Laniel: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	(a) Authorized and issued:	$4,538
(b) No change in capitalization.
2.	Nil. This is not an active company.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) What was the (i) authorized (ii) issued capital of Canadair Flcxtrac Limited at the time of purchase by the government (b) has there been any change in such capital?
2.	What is the present retained earnings in the company ?


Gérald Laniel: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce:
1.	(a) Authorized:	120 Class A common, no par
value
880 Class B common, no par value Issued:	120 Class A for $120
(b) No change in capitalization.
2.	Nil. This company is inactive and all the assets have been sold.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Are any positions presently double banked in the Department of Veterans Affairs and, if so, how many?
2.	What is the estimate of the total number of positions that will be double banked?
3.	Will all double banking of positions be exclusively in Ottawa and, if not, how many will be (a) in Prince Edward Island (b) elsewhere?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. Yes, 16.
May 16, 1980

2.	The estimate of the total number of positions that will be double banked in 1980 is 24. The number beyond 1980 cannot be determined at this time.
3.	All double banking will be in Ottawa.
Order Paper Questions


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. At March 31, 1980: Disability pension application-8 months.
Survivors benefits application-3.9 months.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the locations of hospitals and nursing homes administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs?
2.	(a) How many (i) chronic care (ii) other patients are presently at each location (b) how many beds are not occupied and what is the number of veterans on the waiting list at each?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Ste-Anne's Hospital, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec.		
Rideau Veterans Home, Ottawa, Ontario.		
Deer Lodge Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba.		
Saskatoon Veterans Home, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.	(i)	(ii)Ste-Anne's Hospital	513	460Rideau Veterans Home	-	110Deer Lodge Hospital Saskatoon Veterans	171	131Home	-	72Unoccupied	WaitingBeds	ListSte-Anne's Hospital	113	55Rideau Veterans Home	0	12Deer Lodge Hospital Saskatoon Veterans	62	24Home	8	19
The figures in this category reflect the number ot veterans awaiting a bed for the appropriate service of the hospital, (medical, surgical, domiciliary care, etc.).
2.	In fiscal year 1979-80:
(a)	38.1 per cent
(b)	24.8 per cent taken to next level were granted. 22.8 per cent taken to final level were granted.
54.1 per cent of all claims submitted were granted.
3.	No statistics are maintained, however;
In applying the provisions of the Pension Act most awards are effective from the date of application. In a very few cases, those adjudicated at the second and third levels, the effective date of the award may be later than the date of application. However, in any case where a delay beyond the control of the applicant has occurred, the act provides that an additional award in an amount equivalent to up to two years pension may be made to compensate for the delay.


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


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: (a)		29
(b)	(i)	8
	(ii)	1
(a)		29
(b)	(i)	8No.	(ii)	0


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the average time to process the pension application of a veteran to the first level of acceptance or rejection?
2.	(a) What percentage of the applications are granted at the first level (b) what additional percentage of applications are eventually granted after rejection at the first level?
3.	Is the effective date, when a pension is granted, backdated and, if so, what percentage are (a) prior to the date (b) on the date (c) after the date of the application?


Mr. Herbert: 1.	As of March 31, 1979 (a) how many persons in the SX classification were employed by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (b) how many were (i) francophones (ii) females?
2.	What are the present totals?

May 16, 1980
Order Paper Questions
3.	Was there a structural change in the Department since March 31, 1979 and, if so, what effect did such a change have on the number of SXs employed?


Ralph Ferguson: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1. (a)	75
(b)	(i) Francophone	10(ii)	females	Nil2.	Present total	75(i)	Francophone	10(ii)	female	Nil3.	Yes, structural changes occurred in the department since March 31, 1979; no change in the number of SXs employed.


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


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: (a)	21	
(b)	(i)	2
	(ii)	Nil
(a)	21	
(b)	(i)	2No	(ii)	Nil


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


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: (a)		102
(b)	(i)	23
	(ii)	9
(a)		105
(b)	(i)	19
	(ii)	14
3.	The reorganization of the office of the Comptroller General of Canada led to an increase of 11 SX positions.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names, job designations and dates of arrival in Canada of all persons who are accredited diplomats from Czechoslovakia?
2.	What are the names, job designations and dates of arrival in Canada of all persons serving the Czechoslovakian diplomatic service who are either non-Canadians or Czechoslovakian nationals?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Accredited Diplomats from Czechoslovakia
Name	Title	Date of ArrivalStefan Murin	Ambassador	September 27, 1976Antonin Simecek	Counsellor	May 18. 1978Colonel Jaromir Siroky Attache	Military and Air	May 2, 1977Andrej Gula	First Secretary	September 21, 1978Emil Ondrus	Second Secretary	January 8, 1977Vladimir Huska	Third Secretary	August 15, 1977Jaroslav Klinkacek	Attache	September 20, 1976Josef Zabokrlsky	Consul-General	June 30, 1978Miroslav Otta	Consul	August 3, 1978Jaromir Fuxa	Vice-Consul	November 1 3, 1976Jozef Lipar	Vice-Consul	March 22, 1979Miloslav Zboril	Vice-Consul	April 26, 1979Vaclav Kristi	Vice-Consul	November 11, 1975Petr Hruby	Vice-Consul	August 18, 1978Petr Brezina	Vice-Consul	January 17,1980Jiri Dostal	Vice-Consul	February 28, 1980Vitezslav Polak	Vice-Consul	August 26, 1979Members of Staff-Czechoslovak Nationals	Ruzena Soukupova	February 12, 1977Zdenka Srcnkova	November 21, 1977Zdcnck Voldrich	November 9, 1978Nada Suroviakova	August 16, 1979Jan Polak	December 6, 1979


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Department of Justice?


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: As of April 30, 1980, there were 488 lawyers on the staff of the Department of Justice. That figure includes a total
May 16, 1980

of 159 Department of Justice lawyers who are physically located with other government departments for the purpose of providing legal services.
A total breakdown of Department of Justice legal officers is as follows:
Department headquarters	138
Departmental legal services units	159
Regional offices	191
	488


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Department of National Defence?


Ursula Appolloni: As of April 1, 1980, there are 49 legal officers (military) in the Department of National Defence.


Mr. Howie: How many civilian personnel were employed on staff at CFB Gagetown on April 1 (a) 1980 (b) 1979 (c) 1978 (d) 1975?


Ursula Appolloni: As of April 1 in each year: (a) 825; (b) 962; (c) 1,241; (d) 781.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the Department of Supply and Services call tenders by public advertisement and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Does the Department call tenders on an invitation basis and, if so, is there a list compiled for each electoral district of those to whom invitations will be extended and, if so (a) how is it compiled (b) is it compiled with political considerations to guarantee that whoever is awarded a contract is certain to be a supporter of the party in power?
3.	With reference to the invitation tender list for the constituency of Leeds-Grenville (a) how was it compiled (b) does the department realize that some of those contained on the list are individuals who are presently residing in cemeteries, firms that have surrendered their charter, etc. (c) is the list dated July 11, 1979 and, if so, on what date was it First compiled ?
4.	How often are lists of those who will be asked to tender on various requirements revised for various electoral districts by the department?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. Advertisement in the public press is appropriate when it is a general custom followed by the trade involved. The Department of Supply and Services solicits bids primarily from lists of competent suppliers. The advantages of selective tendering are that:
(a)	a number of qualified sources are readily available to provide competition;
(b)	it is considered by the supply administration to be the most cost-effective approach to maintaining
Order Paper Questions
adequate levels of competition and equity of opportunity;
(c) it serves to shorten the contracting process.
2.	The department calls tenders on an invitation basis but does not compile lists by electoral districts.
(a)	n.a.
(b)	n.a.
3.	n.a.
4.	n.a.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	For the fiscal year 1978-79, how many contracts were let by the Department of Communications 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?


Peter A. Stollery: In so far as the
Department of Communications is concerned, the answers to the above questions are as follows:
1.	Four contracts were let during the fiscal year 1978-79 for professional services to persons who had been employed in indeterminate positions under the Public Service Commission within the past five years.
2.	(a) Four contracts were for less than one year;
(b)	None.
(c)	None.
3.	None.
4.	Total cost-$38,710.00.


Mr. Shields: Since August I, 1978, how many (a) administrative (b) policy consultants were under contract to the Federal-Provincial Relations office and/or any boards, commissions or corporations reporting to the minister and, in each case, what amount was paid to them?


David Michael Collenette: (a) and (b) None.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
1 164

May 16, 1980
Farm Improvement Loans Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. E. F. Whelan moved: that Bill C-27, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Madam Speaker, today I ask this House for its support of Bill C-27, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Basically there are two amendments proposed. First, we want to renew the program for another three years. Since it was introduced in 1945 the program has been extended several times, usually at three-year intervals. These many extensions testify to the continuing need for this program.
The second amendment is for an increase in the total amount a farmer can borrow under the program. The maximum was raised to $50,000 in 1974 and to $75,000 in 1977. Now we feel that rising costs for farm machinery and equipment, land and other items have gone to the point where the maximum should be at least $100,000.
For many farmers this increase in the maximum allows them to make the kinds of improvements the act was designed to facilitate. We are talking here about the purchase of agricultural implements, machinery and equipment; the purchase of livestock including poultry, beef stock and fur-bearing animals; the installation of farm electrical equipment, things like bulk milk tanks, grain handling systems, barn cleaners, construction or repair of farm buildings, other improvements such as irrigation systems, drainage and fencing; and the purchase of additional land. We are talking about the kinds of things that make a farm run.
Farmers who qualify for loans under the act make their own credit arrangements through chartered banks or other lending institutions that are approved by the government. The federal government's role in the transaction is to guarantee the bank or lending institution against losses it may sustain. Under the act the maximum interest rates on farm improvement loans are based on the chartered banks' prime lending rate plus 1 per cent.
However, I should point out that the lender is obliged to make sure the loan is secure and that normal banking discretion is used in issuing the loan. For that reason and because farmers are about the best credit risks around, the farm improvement loans program does not wind up costing the federal government very much in actual cash outlay. In 1977 the net cost to the government was less than $190,000. It rose to $289,000 in 1978, and last year the net cost was $222,000. Compare that with the actual amounts loaned out under the program during those three years; hundreds of millions of dollars were actually loaned. Last year $262 millions was loaned. In all, since 1945 something like $4.3 billion has been loaned out under the program.
We can make a comparison of loss ratio. For instance, in 1979 when $262 million was loaned, the net cost to the government against the amounts loaned out was running at .14 per cent, not even a quarter of 1 per cent. In 1977 the rate was .13 per cent, and in 1978 it was .13 per cent. We hear much about how bad 1979 was, but in 1979 the loss ratio was the lowest ever, .08 per cent. Over 22,000 farmers took advantage of that program.
The extra production that the program generates means more food for Canadians, our trading partners and those who receive food aid shipments from us. I am not pretending that this program is single handedly responsible for big increases in food production, but it is one of the many things the federal government is doing to bring greater stability to the farming sector.
1 am sure we are all aware that many other programs are available to farm people under the federal system. We have the Farm Credit Act, the Farm Syndicates Credit Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act which I am talking about at the present time. However, when we look at the other programs that the provinces have, we can look at a food-producing province like Alberta, for instance, see the number of different loan programs and subsidized interest rates there are, and we cannot help but be impressed. For instance, direct farm loans in Alberta are available for any agricultural purpose to producers unable to obtain long-term credit from other sources. The suggested maximum is $150,000 with a 30-year repayment, and 20 per cent equity is required. There are also special direct loans for disaster assistance and financial restructuring.
In the year 1979-80, $60 million was loaned under that program.


Walter David Baker: Which one is that?


Eugene Whelan: That is Alberta. Every province but one has some kind of program such as this or somewhat similar to this, but many of them are much different. There is such a hodgepodge of lending programs that it is really difficult to say that there are no funds available to farmers who do not have some special subsidization program. It is difficult for me, when I am trying to work out programs for the good of the national interest, when I find the inequity which is in the different programs which in some instances top load our federal programs, subsidize the interest rates we set or subsidize the provincial interest rates for provincial producers.
I have a table of all these programs. If it would be of interest to the House, I would ask that it be appended to the proceedings of the day, if that would be possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister mean Hansard?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is that agreed by all hon. members?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is offering to table those programs, we certainly would agree to that. I think it would be very helpful.
May 16, 1980


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House that these documents be tabled?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think we should be clear, Mr. Speaker. The minister wanted them made part of the proceedings. That sounds like Votes and Proceedings. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) agreed that they be tabled. What is wanted?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I should have added in my prior statement "and appended to Hansard". Is it agreed that they be tabled and appended to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For tables referred to above, see Appendix for Tuesday, May 20, 1980.]


Eugene Whelan: I was going to read these tables into the record, so appending them is much easier. I think they are a form of education when we talk about the different farm programs. I see the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) is here. I am sure he is aware that provincial governments have subsidies, interest programs, top loading programs, etc. which I am sure many people are not aware of. There are programs in Quebec, and many people point out that Quebec is the only province with subsidized programs.
That is not true. Saskatchewan, for instance, has programs which are called FarmStart programs. Eight hundred loans were made last year to young farmers in Saskatchewan. I believe the mortgages run for 15 years at a guaranteed interest rate of 8 per cent. Those programs are very good but, going back to the one in Saskatchewan again, the one Saskatchewan had was mostly to start farmers into pork production and livestock enterprises. It was geared especially to that kind of enterprise, and most of them are already in financial difficulty because of the decrease in the price being received for those products. So, I just point out that we have been doing some research and trying to come up with a program which would provide equity between farmers who are competing for the domestic market or the international market.
Some farmers are at a terrible disadvantage because of the lack of funds being made available to them. The province of Ontario probably has some of the smallest programs. I will touch on some of them shortly since I think they are beneficial to agriculture in that area. They depend more on federal loans and programs such as the Farm Credit Corporation and farm improvement loans program. As hon. members already know, I talked about the farm credit program which issues long-term loans to farmers and has a tremendous stabilizing influence on Canadian agriculture. FC programs are especially designed for the financial programs which farmers encounter.
Recently when I spoke about the Farm Credit Corporation 1 said that we had asked them to look especially after younger farmers who find themselves in economic difficulties through high interest rates, and in some areas because of depressed prices for the commodities they are producing. So we asked
Farm Improvement Loans Act
FCC to place a moratorium on the loans. Some people feel that that is a cancellation of the debt and the interest rate. That is not so. All it does is delay the payment. The Farm Credit Corporation has within the legislation the right vested in them to do that kind of thing. They have been doing it in the past and will do it in the future.
Also the Farm Credit Corporation can be the judge when a young farmer has little collateral but the drive and ability to survive in agriculture, and for that reason FCC is often the only hope which a farmer beginning operation has, except for some programs which are in existence in Saskatchewan and in Alberta which are especially geared to encourage young people to go into the Peace River district. Some of them have been pretty costly ventures for the provinces. Right now about 70 per cent of the long-term credit outstanding in Canadian agriculture is in loans from the Farm Credit Corporation. I am proud of FCC, and indeed the federal government should be proud that it has made such a program available to the farmers of this country.
Also administered by FCC is the farm syndicates loans program under which groups of three or more farmers can purchase jointly machinery, buildings or instal equipment. This program provides up to 80 per cent of the total cost, with a maximum of $ 15,000 per person, or $ 100,000 in total.
Another program of which we can be proud-one which brings a large measure of marketing stability to thousands of Canadian farmers-is the advance payments for crops program. This program provides farmers with interest free loans to pay operating and carrying costs for their storable crops. Farmers can then afford to hold more of the crop until the market is right, and that is orderly marketing.
I spoke of interest free loans, but we all know that nothing is free in this world. The federal government paid more than $2 million in interest on loans under that program in the fiscal year 1979-80. As I said, provincial governments have different kinds of programs, and these I have tabled. I spoke a little about Ontario. They have a program which can be used as another example. There a farmer can have up to 75 per cent of the cost of drainage work financed at an interest rate of 6 per cent.
Those are some examples of programs that are available in Canada today to farmers. As I said, they are not available to all farmers; it all depends on the programs that some of the provinces have. If anything, this has a tendency to balkanize the country.
A farm improvement loans program is an important source of intermediate-term credit for Canadian farmers. Most of these loans are for a ten-year term, with some extending to 15 years for the purchase of extra land to expand a farm.
I should point out that the total amount of farm credit outstanding is now something like $15 billion. That is a tremendous burden on the relatively small number of farmers in Canada. The cost of servicing the debt is the cost of production, and when a farmer compares his cost of production with expected market returns and if there is not much

May 16, 1980
Farm Improvement Loans Act
margin in between, you can appreciate the effect on a farmer's management planning.
Right now we should be doing everything we can to help farmers maintain the production levels they have achieved to produce more of the food that we would otherwise import, and to take advantage of export markets. Increasingly, the world will need Canadian farm products, and our farmers must have the credit they need to produce this food.
Therefore, 1 ask members of the Elouse to support the amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act as presented, to study all the other sections, and if they have any suggestions, if they think amendments should be put forward in committee, 1 will be perfectly willing to listen to any constructive suggestion.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-27, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I was also pleased to hear the minister give that open invitation for input into the various programs which the federal government sponsors.
This is an act the provisions of which 1 have taken advantage of over the past 25 years of farming experience. The Farm improvement Loans Act came into force in March, 1945, for an initial period of three years and was subsequently amended from time to time to remain in effect for additional lending periods. The current lending period expires June 30, 1980.
The stated purpose of the act is to facilitate the availability of intermediate and short-term credit to farmers for the improvement or development of farms and for the improvement of living conditions thereon. To this end, the act authorizes the responsible minister to guarantee against loss, term loans made to farmers by chartered banks, Alberta treasury branches and other lenders designated by the minister, for a wide range of farm improvement projects.
The maximum amount of guaranteed loans which a borrower may have outstanding at any one time is $75,000. This amendment to the act in Bill C-27 would increase that maximum lending limit to $100,000. 1 will demonstrate in this statement how totally inadequate this lending limitation is in the year 1980. One need only study our recent history to reach the assumption that the inflationary effect will guarantee the complete inadequacy of the maximum which will be allowed three years hence.
During the year 1978, 75 per cent of the loans were to purchase agricultural implements, 10 per cent were for construction, repair or alteration of farm houses and buildings, 8 per cent for the purchase of additional land, and 4 per cent for other improvements, such as the clearing of land, fencing, irrigation and similar projects. Of the 24,000 loans made in 1978, only 809 were made to B.C. farmers. In a period of advancing technology, demanding as it does financing beyond the immediate ability of most farmers, perhaps the shortcomings of the act are dramatized by the small number of B.C. farmers to participate in the supposed benefits.
Unquestionably the principles and practical effects of the farm improvement loans legislation have had significant beneficial effect over the years of its existence on the ability of the farming community in Canada to survive in a very, very tough competitive environment in which it is absolutely essential that Canadian farmers adapt to the most modern advances in farm technology. Agriculture in many ways has been at the forefront of this adaptation to modernization and to efficiency enhancement through increased mechanization of all of the operations involved in crop creation, processing and distribution.
Canadian agriculturists must remain competitive with farm production from countries in the world where farm labour is paid at less than one-tenth of the equivalent farm wage level in Canada. This ability to remain competitive is made possible only as Canadian farmers have the possibility to make acquisition of those costly tools and machines which offer the necessary labour conserving standards. This has been particularly the case in a nation in which the consumers' immediate interests have been paramount to the political forces, with the result that a cheap food policy has been in vogue to the disadvantage of the agricultural community. It is to the credit of farmers that in this hostile environment they have been able to survive and to a degree prosper.
It is not only at the farm production unit level that Canadian farmer survival is subject to his ability to finance acquisition of new equipment such as tractors, spray machines, seeders, swathers, balers, trucks, and for orchardists whom I represent, self-propelled mechanical lift machines. We call them Girettes or Kangaroos. The list of available machines goes on and on and on. Required is the ability to finance the purchase. This act gives some assistance in this financing ability.
In my riding of Okanagan-Similkameen fruit production is largely accepted, handled, packaged and sold by grower-owned facilities. Fruit packing house units have also seen in the past decade a very dramatic leap forward in the application of labour efficient mechanization. Without these changes our industry would have no ability to remain competitive in a world in which survival is measured only in terms of competitive adaptability.
In 1964 the fruit packing house, of which I was president, modernized to the level of that day at a cost of less than $100,000. It was five years ago, while I was a director of the Oliver-Osoyoos Co-Operative Growers' Association, that a major efficiency related project was undertaken. This brought to the Okanagan, and indeed to Canada, for the first time a totally new concept in fruit handling techniques, the most advanced of its kind in the world.
May 16, 1980



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Madam Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General that this honourable House attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour, the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, His Honour was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to a certain bill:
Bill C-29, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1981.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.05 p.m. the House took recess.
OO)


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan that Bill C-27, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure where i left off prior to the adjournment, so I shall resume my remarks by referring to the fruit packing business.
In 1964 the fruit packing house of which I was president modernized to the level of that day at a cost of less than $100,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You told us that before lunch.


Frederick John King: I just wanted to make sure everyone here understood my position with regard to that accomplishment.
Farm Improvement Loans Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: At least I was listening to you.


Mr. Kaplan:: Don't let the NDP intimidate you.


Frederick John King: Never-nor the Liberals. Five years ago, while a director of the Oliver-Osoyoos Co-op Growers' Association, a major efficiency related project was undertaken. This brought to the Okanagan and to Canada for the first time, a totally new concept in fruit handling techniques, the most advanced of its kind in the world. This was accomplished at a cost of $1.25 million; to move to that standard of mechanization today would cost in excess of $2.5 million.
I mention these investment patterns in farm enterprises in which 1 have been very closely involved to emphasize the nature of modern day farming and the absolute imperative of adequate financing provisions such as we are debating today. Government supported legislation is absolutely necessary because the market place is not serving farmers adequately.
Where in the act is there provision to correct the objectionable aspects of the bill which have been the subject of comment on many occasions previously when the act was reviewed? I refer to the fact that banking institutions are entirely free to deny loans to farmers for reasons other than security of loans. The suggestion has been made that if banks are given a guarantee under the act-and they are-then there should be some obligation on their part. Perhaps this is one aspect of the bill which should be given scrutiny during committee examination.
I should like to quote remarks made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson), as recorded in Hansard on May 2, 1977. At that time he said:
The extreme difficulty faced by young people endeavouring to establish themselves in agriculture is.. . a major problem. So as one examined the provisions of this bill, one finds that it does not seem to include any changes which take into account the difficulties of those engaged in agriculture. The bill does not seem to envisage the taking of new initiatives. No new initiatives are taken in the bill which will expand the availability of assistance to the agricultural community. Therefore, all we are considering, really, is another statement in the form of this bill saying that this program is to be continued.
One could say that loan limits are to be increased. I say that the amount provided by the bill is far less than that which is required in order to enable our agricultural community to meet its problems and finance its operations. As it is, farmers face great difficulty in making ends meet. However, we welcome this legislation in so far as it affects the agricultural community, but urge the government to look at new initiaves and new programs which will meet adequately the needs of those engaged in the agricultural sector of our economy.
It is sad to observe that the above remarks, made three years ago, are entirely current today.
I would like to discuss briefly the matter of farm income. Despite the ever increasing costs of food being experienced to the chagrin of the nation's housewives and budget keepers, the difference between what farmers receive and what consumers pay for food, called the marketing spread, widened nearly 12 per cent in 1979. This is the largest increase in five years. The marketing spread, representing charges for handling, processing and distributing a market basket of farm foods, accounted for slightly over half the 10.8 per cent rise in grocery food

May 16, 1980
Farm Improvement Loans Act
prices last year. Increased farm value accounted for about a third of supermarket food increases.
In this scenario, with farm operating costs rising more rapidly than the cost of living index, with farmers receiving a lesser percentage of the consumer dollar spent on food, farmers do not represent the most attractive credit risk to commercial lenders. Some type of government intervention is required if Canadian agriculture is to survive, and survive it must if our nation is to prosper and remain sovereign and independent.
We have allowed this energy rich nation to become subjected to the whims of foreign interests simply because we have neglected our own potential. Both price and supply of petroleum products are now outside our nation's control. We certainly must not allow agricultural production to suffer the same type of gross national indifference by a government more concerned with its own political well-being than it is with the well-being of the nation.
The orchard tractor which 1 bought last month cost my orchard company $14,300. Today, less than one month later, that very tractor is priced at $15,750. This is an increase in price of $ 1,450 in less than 30 days.
We are becoming immune to shock when it comes to price increases from day to day. Our wives see and report what is happening on supermarket shelves. But the price of the tractor that 1 have just purchased puts the whole of this act in more dramatic perspective. To examine what the price of that tractor unit was just three years ago when this act was last amended, the tractor-a 50 horsepower unit-that cost $14,300 last month and which today costs $15,750 was available just three years ago for $8,400.


Eugene Whelan: What did you trade in for it?


Frederick John King: I am sure that this pattern of equipment pricing increase is duplicated across Canada in all types of farming activity. It certainly is not a phenomenon endured by fruit farmers alone.
I did not catch the interjection made by the minister, but I will be happy to discuss it with him after.
Thus we can say with some considerable conviction that the increase in the maximum lending limit from $75,000 to $ 100,000, while moving in the right direction, does not in fact keep pace with the rate of inflation which this government has imposed upon our nation and on our farmers by its undisciplined spending regime. We should, therefore, look at this aspect of the legislation to ensure that we are providing financing adequate to meet the requirements of today's costs and today's farming technology.
The April, 1980, edition of Country Life quotes from the British Columbia federation of agriculture presentation to members of the legislative assembly of British Columbia. It reads as follows:
The federation delegation told the MLAs that inflation and increasing interest rates are two of the most important issues currently facing farmers. They claimed that agricultural production is particularly susceptible to both because
there is no guaranteed relationship between inflation and the level of farm commodity prices.
Food production is one of the most capital intensive sectors of our economy . . . B.C. farmers have over $1 billion in loans out.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, a contradiction which exists in this government's policies towards farm economics. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) this morning in his address to the House asked for the support of the House in favour of the passage of this bill. 1 would assume that since this is one of the few matters brought before this House which can be supported without great offence to one's conscience, that passage will be assured within the normal time-frame.
I would, however, like to point out to the minister that the grape growers and wine producers of British Columbia, who can make little use of the benefits of this act, would very much prefer to see the rescinding of the repressive tax measure applied to the wine industry as contained in the recent and infamous mini-budget. The effect of the tax is to directly cost the grape producers the equivalent of $180 a tonne, and this on a commodity worth $400, $500, $600 to $700 a tonne. The B.C. wine industry, which is determined to establish its place in the quality wine market, will, of necessity, pass on some of this added tax burden to the grape producer. In establishing themselves in a market dominated by imported product, our local wine producers are unable to pass the tax on the consumer.
So we have here, Mr. Speaker, a situation in which the Minister of Agriculture proposes to help agriculture, while the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) proposes to make it difficult for this one segment of agriculture to continue.
Let me point out to the House some government financial initiatives which have been of great value to the farming community in the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen. I speak with knowledge of the ARDA program which has been the instrument by which most of the irrigation districts and municipal irrigation works have been upgraded, improved and expanded. Without the joint federal-provincial program, it is safe to say that farmers in the B.C. interior drybelt areas would have been hard pressed to remain in business. It is entirely safe to say that the total economy of central British Columbia has been enhanced and stabilized by the application of ARDA to the water supply systems of that area.
Another federal-provincial program with which I am entirely familiar is the crop insurance program. 1 was an employee in the ministry of agriculture in B.C. in the crop insurance branch from its inception. 1 say without equivocation that this program has been of most significant value to agriculture in B.C. and throughout Canada.
The Farm Credit Act has provided the means for farm acquisition and expansion. The cold storage assistance program has had great application in the Okanagan Valley, as the minister is aware, creating jobs and giving the industry an opportunity to progress to its present high state of performance.
Let me use this debate forum to reinforce the fact that as the farm economy in Okanagan-Similkameen prospers, the
May 16, 1980

community at large in that area prospers. In the broadest sense, the same applies to our nation as a whole; as goes agriculture, so goes the nation. The Government of Canada must recognize this fact and must move on many fronts to give the agricultural community those advantages and programs necessary to its continued existence, and to give farmers a place of dignity in Canada's economic community.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Frederick John King: I will permit a question. I am not sure if I can answer it, but I will make an attempt.


Eugene Whelan: I have known the hon. member for quite some time I know his background. He talked about the cold storage assistance program. I do not want to create the impression that he intentionally forgot to mention that that was brought forward by the Government of Canada and that his province took advantage of 50 per cent of the funds under the cold storage assistance program for controlled atmosphere temperature storage, jacketed storage and cold storage. It allowed the British Columbia fruit producers, namely apple producers, to export to, 1 believe, 82 countries last year because they had such a high quality product. Did he intend to admit the fact that it was the Ministry of Agriculture of the Canadian government that made it possible?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think the Chair should intervene in the sense that normally debate is not encouraged in the circumstances, but the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King). Other than that, we will proceed to the next member who wants to enter the debate.


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, having acted for packing houses in the Okanagan which took advantage of this act, 1 certainly was not trying to exclude anyone from applause because of its availability. 1 just point out there are acts that can be implemented. There are programs that can be instituted which are of great benefit to the farming community, and this is one of them. We should seek to find more opportunities to enhance agriculture in Canada. The act before us today provides a modicum of such enhancement.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, on this my first opportunity to speak to this House on a formal basis in this session, please accept my congratulations on your appointment as Acting Speaker, and kindly pass on to Madam Speaker my congratulations and expressions of pleasure at her appointment.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the downturn in the economy of the country is having a disastrous effect on the agriculture industry all across Canada. My colleague, the hon. member for Humbolt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) will also discuss some of the effects of this disaster.
Farm Improvement Loans Act
As a westerner and a representative of a farming area, 1 feel that I cannot pass up an opportunity to speak to Bill C-27, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I recognize that this amendment is intended only as a relief from the pressure on certain borrowers, raising as it does the maximum level from $75,000 to $100,000 and changing the responsible minister. It is because of those limited intentions in this bill that I feel I must speak out and put before the House some of the shortcomings of this amendment, and put this whole issue of farm credit in the context of what is really happening down on the farm.
This House should be well aware that a crisis exists in agriculture in this country. While the price of what the farmer sells remains static or declines, the price of what the farmer buys outpaces Canada's quite unacceptable rate of inflation.
The general farm input index with a 1971 base of 100 reached 234.1 for the last quarter of 1979 and is now increasing at the rate of 15 per cent per annum, half again as high as the increases recorded in the national inflation indicator, the consumer price index. In just ten years, Mr. Speaker, the farm dollar has shrunk to only 42 per cent of its 1971 self. It is worth 42 cents today compared to what it was worth in 1971.
The price of a key farm input, fertilizer, has increased up to 25 per cent this spring. The reasons for this massive increase can be accounted for simply enough. Higher transportation costs, higher natural gas prices, the decline of the Canadian dollar and increasing interest rates are a few of the reasons that can be put forward.
The federal government can influence all of these factors, and the fact that they have been unable to do so in the past few years is a telling comment on the Liberal party and Conservative party's economic policies. During the past three years all we have been given by these governments are a dozen dry and dusty after-the-fact analyses by academic economists. Farmers do not have the luxury of waiting until after the fact. They must make their purchases for the current crop season now and pay the disastrous interest rates that are the direct result of the international policy on interest rates that is commonly known as the "beggar thy neighbour" policy. While the United States and the European Economic Community play this usurious game, the farmers of North America are sitting on the sidelines wondering how they will pay.
Here is an example of the immediate problems being faced by U.S. farmers in the month of March. The Canadian situation parallels it almost exactly. In that one month fertilizer prices increased 9 per cent, fuel by 3 per cent, machinery by 5 per cent, farm chemicals by 14 per cent. The Canadian situation is almost exactly the same and there is no cheap money to help the farmers offset these increasing costs.
Farmers, like other sectors of small independent businesses, shopkeepers and working people, are among the economically weak in our society who do not profit from inflation.
The government of Saskatchewan is making FarmStart loans available this year at 8 per cent for the first five years and 10 per cent on the final ten years. But FarmStart is a very

May 16, 1980
Farm Improvement Loans Act
small program for a very few hundred young farmers. It is really the responsibility of the federal government to enact wider range programs to help all farmers in the current cash shortage resulting from the cost-price squeeze. This act extends somewhat the maximum amount a farmer can get and makes some more money available, but at a cost to farmers of prime rate plus 1 per cent.
Because the farmers of Canada are in up to their necks, Mr. Speaker, they are like those gallant show business people who sing:
Hey, look us over.
Lend us your ear Fresh out of clover Mortgaged up to here


Mr. Kempling:: Sing it!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: They are mortgaged to the hilt. Farm indebtedness at the end of 1979 was $9 billion and the interest charges paid on that principal was $1.24 billion, an increase of 71 per cent on the debt payments of only three years ago. In fact, payment of debt is the fastest growing thing on Canadian farms. The Canadian government is providing the fertilizer for this phenomenal growth.
In 1980, debt payment on the anticipated $10 billion outstanding will be the largest single expense to farmers. It will cost more than feed or farm machinery costs and is growing faster than weeds in the back pasture.
The farmer has been placed in a position where he must try and find money at almost any price. Even at these high interest rates it may not be available. Farm Credit Corporation personnel have said they will only be able to meet two thirds of the demand in this fiscal year.
There is an alternative program which any responsible opposition party must put forward. We must recognize immediately and frankly that an emergency situation is facing farmers in Canada. It is a situation which is not of their own making. It is a situation which is causing thousands of them to go to the wall right across the country. In the past three years, the number of farms in Prince Edward Island has decreased by 16 per cent, the number of farms in New Brunswick has dropped by 22 per cent and similar figures apply all across the country.
Mr. Speaker, do not believe the propaganda which seems to have gotten to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin)-that farmers are changing their minds about the Crow rates. If you faced the kind of prospects I have outlined here today, would you be asking for a five or sixfold increase in freight rates? Such increases would only mean still greater losses. Western farmers intend to protect their statutory rates. They really have no alternative.
What we desperately need are interim measures, and in this regard the government would do well to consider the recommendations contained in the National Farmers Union farm
emergency measures program which was presented to the government on April 22. Among those recommendations were requests for two short-term measures which the government should consider carefully: first, a moratorium on all farm debts which threaten a farmer's livelihood on the land. This kind of federal guarantee, so popular with large operations such as Chrysler, would show that Ottawa places as much importance on the growing of food as it does on the assembly of automobiles. Of equal importance, it would show that the federal government has the same degree of commitment to the farmers of Canada as to the automotive industry.
Second, the federal government should provide credit guarantees to needy farmers in respect of 1980 farm operating costs. Such a move would recognize that many of the inflationary forces adversely affecting farmers at this time are not of their making and that farmers deserve some measure of protection, particularly if their credit needs are not being met by existing institutions.
The bill before us does not guarantee that farmers will get the credit which is available. An investment in the growing of food by the government would help ensure protection against hyper-inflation of food prices six months from now when the effect of reduced production hits the food market. Let us not be fooled. We must recognize that if farmers do not get help now they will be forced to cut back production.
Although I am not opposing the changes put forward in this bill, I hope the government will recognize the present crisis in farming and use this legislation, along with other measures, to alleviate the situation. 1 say this because the crisis is becoming more acute every day. In the prairie provinces it is being accentuated by the extra factor of a sustained drought. The embattled farmer faces high costs for chemicals, machinery and land. In return, he gets low prices for pork, low prices for the stock he wants to sell. These figures are being pushed down to a considerable extent by the drought as well as by high interest rates.
The grain embargo has almost certainly eliminated the prospect of a final payment on grain this year and farmers face predictably lower prices for grain in the coming crop year, again because of the embargo. Most farmers feel that in the circumstances there is little chance of coming out ahead of the game. They are likely to lose money. They are likely to be selling below the cost of production again this year in all areas. But farmers are optimistic. They will continue to farm even despite this prediction, and Canada can thank them for it. It is a responsibility of the government to deal with this crisis wherever and however it can.
We are considering a bill which will provide some extra money for farmers to borrow. If we lend it to them at the business rate, the prime interest rate plus 1 per cent, we shall be driving more farmers out of business. So I urge the government to give them the opportunity to borrow at a lower rate, possibly at a rate which would amount to only a service charge.
Also, let us make enough money available so all farmers have a hope of surviving. Better still, let us put into effect the
May 16, 1980

farmers' union proposal and bring some hope to the whole industry for another year. As one of the farmers' union signs said a few weeks ago: "It's no joke, we're going broke."


Ralph Ferguson: Madam Speaker, I want to address myself to this bill at this time because it means so much to producers in Canada. But I do not want to take up too much time because farmers in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, British Columbia and the Atlantic provinces are anxiously awaiting Bill C-15, the livestock feed assistance amendments, since in those areas they do not have the opportunities open to us in Ontario and western Canada, particularly the three prairie provinces, to produce their own feed.
I have a few comments to make in relation to the bill before us, legislation I have personally used on many occasions in years gone by when I was becoming established as a farmer. Perhaps I should point out, with reference to the high interest rates which are hurting farmers at the present time, that there have been fewer bankruptcies reported by the Farm Credit Corporation this last year than there were in the year previous to that. 1 might also point out to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) that since the Speech from the Throne interest rates have dropped in every consecutive week.


An hon. Member:: No connection!


Ralph Ferguson: There is a direct connection because the money is lent at bank prime rate, plus 1 per cent. I should like to suggest that if there was more co-operation from the provinces-I refer here to the 800 FarmStarts given Saskatchewan last year-and discussion with the federal government we would not have a lot of the areas of concern we face today. I refer here to the red meat sector where there are problems.
On the other hand, we do have the vehicles available to us here in Canada, legislation passed by Parliament, giving farmers the opportunity through the use of permissive legislation to set their own prices at the farm gate, to establish their cost of production formulas which take into consideration increased interest rates whenever they occur. When interest rates decrease, that is also taken into consideration. I should like to point out that a decrease of one cent per dozen in the price of eggs took place recently. This was due to lower interest rates and increased efficiency on the part of the producers.
We do not have many problems reported in connection with commodities under the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, the dairy commission, or in the province of Ontario especially the tobacco board which also negotiates and sets its own prices.
1 think what we need perhaps more in Canada in the way of an outward looking economy to create stability in the agriculture sector is planned production, not only for domestic markets but for exports as well. Let us seek out and develop new markets in a positive sense which would benefit all of Canada and not just the farm sector. They would also create new jobs
Farm Improvement Loans Act
in our work force and benefit society through spin-off effects to all Canadians.
I would like to refer to the national farm products marketing council, the marketing agencies I was connected with for four years and the particular act under which they operate, the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. That act is very broad in its context. It is very permissive and would allow the producers of Canada to set up the type of organization which would relate to their specific area of the industry. As a farmer I believe that it is tragic that we have not encouraged our producers to make more use of this particular act and to work together as Canadians to produce, as envisaged by the Fathers of Confederation.
The act before us today has been utilized to a tremendous extent. The net cost to the Canadian taxpayer, as indicated before lunch by the minister, was $220,000. 1 think it would be remarkable to know what the net benefit was in that act from the money made available and what is done for Canadian society.
Farmers by nature like to produce and they are great spenders. They like to upgrade their homes, their farming operations, their equipment and their facilities. They are very proud. They are very proud to be Canadians, and 1 think that by increasing the ceiling as proposed in this bill here today we are going to give them that opportunity. However, 1 want also to see us through other means go even further and give them the opportunity to develop their potential productivity. I speak of potential productivity in the way of renewable resources to sell abroad to a world that is going to be hungry in the not too distant future. There are some areas in the world which are hungry right now.
I believe the loan guarantee in the Farm Improvement Loans Act is among the least utilized in the banking industry. The losses through this are very, very low. I live only a few miles from the state of Michigan in the United States, and I talk to farmers on that side of the border. In April they were paying 20 per cent interest on their loans. They were paying $1.06 for a U.S. gallon of diesel fuel. 1 had heard they were being subsidized, so I went over to visit a farmer to see if he was in fact being subsidized. He said, "Yes, we have a disaster program; we have subsidization, but that is only if a disaster strikes". 1 believe the last time they collected on that was in 1977 when they had a terribly dry period across that section of the country.
However, they do not have any similar programs there which compare with what we have here in Canada for farmers. They do not have the advance payment program or the interest-free loans we have here. Nor do they have the progressive legislation we have available to us. In Canada, in spite of the fact that perhaps we have a much harsher climate- certainly in some areas of Canada we do not have the potential diversity we have on the prairies, perhaps, or in sections of Ontario-I think we are very fortunate to have such practical legislation which is of benefit not only to the farmers of Canada but also indirectly to all of society.

May 16, 1980
Farm Improvement Loans Act
I indicated that 1 did not want to take up very much time because 1 think it is critical that we get this piece of legislation through, but I hope that this House will give it speedy passage so that we can get on to more pressing legislation such as Bill C-15, to amend the Livestock Feed Assistance Act.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the House is aware of the fact that this legislation is housekeeping legislation to improve the Farm Improvement Loans Act which has served the farmers of all parts of Canada extremely well for over 30 years at very minimum cost to the taxpayers. 1 would think that the cost last year would be equivalent to the wages and expenses of four or five civil servants, and that is all. This act is one of the family of acts under which we have asked private enterprise engaged in the financial business of lending money to do the job for us, in this case banks and credit unions.
I think there is no member in any part of the House who would want to hold up this bill in any way, but 1 do think we have to accept the fact that there is a bad point in the bill. This is through no fault of the minister but through the fault of a theory of government on interest rates which hurts all sections of the ecomony and not just farmers. The same thing was true with the bill we put through a week or so ago on small business. On that bill we used private enterprise to handle the business of lending money to businessmen, as we do with this act to farmers. We ask the banks and credit unions to lend money to farmers, and the Government of Canada gives a guarantee against a portion of the losses to the banks.
The reason it does not cost the government very much in having to pay these guarantees is that one would find it almost impossible to find a bank or credit union which ever lent a farmer any money and did not get it all back. It is as simple as that. There is really no risk taken at all by the banks or credit unions. One has to have more assets and more goodwill by five or six times the amount of money borrowed, so let us not feel that this is a hand-out on the part of the gov^.nment or the banks at all. The banks are the best protectors of the public interest, if we look on the public interest as the money supply of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), that there could be.
I know the minister agrees with me, but I also think that the minister is well aware of the fact that one of the key things in this new legislation is that for the first time the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is allowed to make the regulations. These regulations will go to the governor in council through the Minister of Agriculture. Oh, they have a little stinger in the tail. He has to have the name of the Minister of Finance on the regulations, so in effect what 1 am asking all members of the House to do is to back up the Minister of Agriculture in taking strong stands on behalf of all parliamentarians, if necessary, against the Minister of Finance, who still hangs on to that residual power of putting his hand on any good thing if he thinks it is going to harm the treasury in any way at all. In this case he does not have too much argument. The Minister of Finance is never faced with very much of a loss each year. It is measured in thousands when we are lending out hundreds of millions.
This act is a remarkable achievement, so I want to make my remarks today ones which I hope the Minister of Agriculture will take in the spirit in which they are meant-of trying to help him with arguments he will have to face with the Treasury Board and with the Minister of Finance.
Even before I go into that part of it, I would think one of the biggest troubles the minister is going to have is with the banks and the credit unions. When this act started some 30-odd years ago, the banks were very reluctant to lend under it. They preferred to lend to the big customers who borrowed large amounts of money and had enough assets that the banks never had to worry. They were reluctant to make these small loans of $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 under this act. It took twice as much time with the small programs as it did with the big sums of money they were lending to big business accounts. Gradually they were forced into it.
To give their side of the argument, let me say that they did run schools for their bank managers and brought in some very knowledgeable people from the agricultural industry who helped to run these schools. Now many bank managers and credit union managers across Canada have a remarkable knowledge of the business of running a farm. Some of the banks have even set up special sections for agriculture. So I would say that the difficulties on this front are not as great as they were 20 years ago.
The second fact in relation to the banks, the credit unions and the caisses populaires is that the financial situation is different now from what it was a few years ago. Banks and credit unions are loaded to the gills with money. They are so frightened with all the money they have that they are ignoring the Bank of Canada and trying to force interest rates down to get rid of it.
So now there is an opportunity for farmers and small businessmen to come to the banks with a chance that they will not meet with hostility. The banks are desperate to get rid of this money because it is a liability to them. That is one thing working in our favour. This gives a chance to the Minister of Agriculture to use an argument against the financial gnomes that hang around capital cities trying to hold back any constructive activity that is different from what they did before. The financial argument is that, since the banks are willing to lend, they should be willing to go the full length in proper lending. If they are going to take time, as they are doing, to find out all about a farmer's assets, including equity, they also should take time to look at his income picture for the last number of years and project it forward into a hypothetical cash flow. I know that many bankers are doing that and I know it is done by the Farm Credit Corporation. This means that they can take a look at a loan of, say, $100,000 and project forward to the time when this loan will produce, say, an extra $20,000 a year in income. They know that this is a real plum to strive for.
So how can the farmer or small businessman get to the position of having this $20,000 as quickly as possible? The
May 16, 1980

answer is to keep the "front end" loading costs down. On front end loading costs, the classic example is the interest charge which is paid the minute you take the loan. It may take you a year or two years before you get a cash flow back from the expenditure of that money. If you keep those charges low, the farmer is able to navigate on his previous income and have a better chance of paying the interest and the principal on his debt. In return for this, if he keeps the front end loading charges low, the farmer or small businessman has to be prepared to share the profit.
So I suggest, as I suggested during the Small Businesses Loans Act debate, that under these regulations the minister should put in alternative clauses which would allow a farmer to borrow money, not at prime plus one, as the present regulation calls for as announced in the press release, but, let us say, at 7 per cent or even as high as 7.5 per cent or 8 per cent, on condition that after the debt is paid off totally, the farmer will put back into the bank part of his extra income he will now earn for a certain number of years, which he will work out together with the bank in a mutual arrangement. That will give the bank or the credit union a market return on the money.
This is not a new concept. It is used over and over again in business, particularly with interest rates as high as they are now. Business uses this as the main technique of getting low interest rates.
I do not want to repeat the entire speech which I delivered two weeks ago, but the same principle applies to this bill, namely, that if the banker or the credit union manager who wants to lend money under this act knows he has a guarantee from the government for any losses, a good deal of which will be paid for by the government, is willing to sit down with the borrower and work out a hypothetical cash flow for one, three, five, ten, or 12 years, whatever it comes to, and take the smallest amount of interest he can get away with-I suggest the figure of 7 per cent or 8 per cent would be reasonable and normal in this period of inflation-and then the farmer would be willing to give a certain percentage of the extra profit for a number of years until the lender feels he has been reasonably well compensated-and you can show that from the farmer's net return each year-they will both be better off.
I would like to have the opportunity to put a big chart out in front of hon. members to show examples of how this works. But all I will do is content myself with the story I told weeks ago. A Canadian company last summer wanted to borrow $30 million on a very risky enterprise. It was proposed to the lenders that the interest should be no more than 8 per cent, so that in the first two or three years of this operation, when the cash flow would be negative, it would not be too heavy a load to break this marginal operation.
The lenders went back and took it up with their own government. They came back two or three months later and they said: "We worked out several of these hypothetical cash flows and we figured out that if we only charged you 5 per cent interest, you could pay the debt back that much sooner and we could get the percentage we talked about sooner. Over
Farm Improvement Loans Act
the 25-year life of the contract we will make more money out of it by getting you to pay off the debt quicker with the smallest of the front end loading charge."
The benefit of this to the lender was obvious. Naturally the borrower was delighted because in the risky first two or three years of the operation, if the costs are low enough you can keep on surviving each day, and then you get a chance to live long enough at the business to pay both the principal and interest quickly and you do not mind sharing a percentage of the profit afterwards. I know this works for small business if they can persuade the lender to give them that type of deal.
I would not be reluctant, if I were in the minister's position, to try that out on the Department of Finance. I suggest that he should talk to one or two of the banks first, particularly the top-notch agricultural men-and he knows who they are as well as I do-to see if he could not get one or two examples from them. Perhaps he could put it as one alternative in the regulations that the farmer would have the choice of taking the interest rate as prime plus 1 per cent, or the alternative of working out the kind of deal to which I referred. You might find bank managers and managers of credit unions who are knowledgeable in the techniques of farming who would realize that it is better to make more money out of a deal than it is to charge a high interest rate at the beginning and risk trouble for the farmer. I think that the farmer today would be very unwise, with the high price of products nowadays, to borrow too much money at a high interest rate. That is why I think he would tend to take the other alternative. I would like to assure the minister that if he would try this idea on the Treasury Board and would get the regulation through, he would have the support of at least some of us on this side and, we hope, on his side as well. I think this would apply to many other things also.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me have this opportunity to put this viewpoint on the provision which deals with interest rates. 1 hope that the Minister of Agriculture will continue his fight, with the support of all of us in the House, to get back other things for the Department of Agriculture. I still want ARDA back where it belongs. I still want PFRA where it belongs. I still want PFRA made into a national institute servicing all of Canada, not just the prairies. Agriculture in the next two or three decades, as is so clear, will become tremendously important because it is the farmers who will produce the great bulk of the energy supplies of Canada and other nations in the future. They can do so now at prices which are competitive with other sources of energy, and I think we can do so without interfering with the present land use.
These ideas have been in my mind for a long time, as many members know. 1 think the minister has a great opportunity, at this time in our history when people are worried about supplies of energy and about costs, to take the lead in the fight to get the administrative machinery, which can do all these things which are in place now, back in the department. If the minister did that, the farmers of Nova Scotia could produce all the energy they need down there, without having to drag in this expensive stuff from the west. Likewise, that would be the case
1174

May 16, 1980
Farm Improvement Loans Act
for the farmers of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario.
The Minister of Agriculture could make his department the great champion of all the people of the country, if he made it very clear to his colleagues that he is a little bit tired of agriculture being pushed aside in this Parliament as it has been for the last ten or 12 years. He should bring it back up where it should be-the leading productive department of this whole country. Then we will give those guys in the mining business and the forestry business a run for their money. We will take it over for them. That is the attitude which should be there. I have declared my willingness, and I suspect most of the members of this House will support the minister on that.
I would be glad to support this bill. I would hope the minister would take up the idea I have proposed. He should see if he can include a regulation like that as an alternative in this act. 1 know it happened once before in the Farm Credit Act. No one uses it very much, but at least the alternative is given. If the minister did that and had it well publicized among the banks and the farmers, there might be a few who would prefer going that way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing today the amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, Bill C-27, an act that has been around every three years since 1945. We are seeking to extend the act for another three years and to increase the loan limit to $100,000 per user from the current limit of $75,000.
The minister has adequately outlined the background to the act, but I should like to spend a minute or two going back to some of the things the Farm Improvement Loans Act does and perhaps try to answer why we have it. As Mr. Speaker knows, it is an act whereby the farmers are able to borrow money from the banks and the credit unions and such loans are guaranteed by the government. Originally the loans were at a lower rate than the usual lending rate was for the banks or credit unions. When it was introduced in 1945, the idea behind it was to assist farmers to retool their operations after the Second World War. Also it was designed to assist the manufacturers in this country and in North America to supply a market for the new machines which they could turn their attention toward manufacturing because the war was finally over. Also it provided guarantees for the lending institutions, primarily the banks, and eventually the credit unions were able to get in on the program as well.
If there are occasional losses because of the loan guarantees part of the program, 1 think it has been made up for many, many times by the fact that it has created employment for people in the manufacturing industry, the sales industry, the agricultural machinery industry, and to some extent has assisted in increasing the productivity of Canadian farms.
The loans have not always been universally available. At times it is virtually impossible for farmers to get a farm
improvement loan because the amount is limited each year. At least that is the story we are told at the banks. For that reason and a couple of others which I will come to, I think probably it is still necessary to continue on in this country having provincial lending institutions aimed at providing service to different types of farms.
The broad economic tools of the Farm Improvement Loans Act can be used to help farmers, manufacturers and banks, but these economic implements are basically effective as they apply to mature farms-farms that have been in business for a while, or farms on which a lot of money is not owed. Generally they are established operations that have been around for some time. Generally they have enjoyed reasonably good crops and reasonably stable production periods just before the point in time at which we measure them. For the beginning farmer or for those farmers who get caught in bad weather or with bad markets, occasionally we need other lending methods or lending institutions. Because it is not easy to make rapid changes in federal laws in federal lending institutions. I maintain the provinces have, of necessity, stepped into this field.
I am fairly responsive to the need of the provinces being in the field because of my own experience in trying to become a farmer 25 or so years ago. I had been attempting to build up some assets so that I could officially become a farmer. I had been farming with my father for three or four years, renting land, renting equipment and, in short, trying to learn the business and build up some equity. Some land became available and I went to the Farm Credit Corporation, knowing that 1 required the minimum of 25 per cent of my own assets free and clear before I could borrow another 75 per cent to buy the farm. After much bookwork, analysis and trading back and forth between the lending institution and myself, finally it was established that the amount of assets 1 had managed to scrape together only came to 23 per cent of what was required to set up the proposed farm. It was one of those situations where I could not buy less; farms come in certain discrete sizes. So, for the lack of 2 per cent of equity, the Farm Credit Corporation turned me down.
Fortunately for me-or probably I would not be here speaking to the House as a farmer-there was a provincial program in the province of Saskatchewan which demanded that a young farmer only needed 20 per cent equity in the farm he was trying to establish. So, I had 2 per cent or 3 per cent extra and I was able to borrow the money. At that time it cost me a little more for interest. Instead of 5 per cent, I had to pay 6.5 per cent. But I was able to get it established and was able to get a loan.
It is to cover those kinds of situations that programs have been established in provinces like Saskatchewan, programs which are aimed specifically at helping the beginning farmer who has not had an opportunity to put together a lot of assets, the farmer who needs the kind of assistance that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) was talking about. I am referring to the kind of loan which does not have a lot of top loading, which in fact amounts to a subsidy for the first few years of the life of the loan. Essential-



May 16, 1980

ly that is what FarmStart does in our province and what goes on in a lot of provincial loan programs in other provinces across the country. They are necessary because these are not the kind of programs that are available under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, or have been available under the Farm Credit Corporation.
I am aware that there seems to have been a perhaps unspoken but definite change in the internal policy of the Farm Credit Corporation in regard to beginning farmers. 1 am not sure it is even that well defined within the Farm Credit Corporation Act, but when you look at the record you will see that five or ten years ago 15 per cent to 17 per cent of loans were being made to farmers under age 35, and the current situation is that something over 70 per cent of the loans being made are being made to farmers under age 35. There does appear to be a definite leaning toward assisting the beginning or younger farmer to get established, and I think that is to the good.
The problem, of course, is that in the kind of inflationary period we are currently facing, the total amount of money available through this program never seems to be quite enough. I can remember when we had an upper limit on all of our loans outstanding for farm improvement of $10,000. This was moved up eventually to $25,000. I recall when that move took place and the hand-wringing, hair-pulling and hair-tearing that occurred among those people who suggested that by increasing the amount of loan capital available to farmers we were simply adding to inflation, which was starting to become a worry at that time.
The theory of some people was that if you increase the amount of money available, farmers would only spend it and that would help to bid up the price of equipment; manufacturers would perhaps take advantage of the situation and raise the price of equipment. I do not know whether that was the reason for the increase, but in fact we have gone through that increase and another increase of the upper limit to $50,000, and now we are going to $100,000 from $75,000. Whether we are following inflation or causing it I will leave to someone else wiser than I to discuss. I only point it out because it is a fact we have to live with, and inflation is probably one of the main reasons we are discussing this bill today to increase the amount of funds available to individual borrowers.
The farm debt load that the agricultural industry in this country is carrying is approaching a level where we should be quite concerned about it. A recent article by R.S. Rust entitled "Farm Finance", which came out in the farm Market Commentary, put out by Agriculture Canada, in the December, 1979, issue, points out that;
Farmer investment in real estate, machinery, and livestock increased from $61,247 million in 1977 to $70,188 million in 1978, an increase of 14.6 per cent compared with a 7.5 per cent increase a year earlier.
Most of that increase is a result of increased valuations of land, buildings and equipment brought about by inflation.
Farm Improvement Loans Act
The article goes on to state:
Farm debt in 1978 increased to $ 12,327 million from $ 10,811 million in 1977-
Farm debt figures are always being tossed around, but the estimate for 1978, and this is a relatively official figure, indicates an increase of 14 per cent over the previous year.
A lot of people do not worry very much about the amount of farm debt or the fact that it is increasing at a rate faster than the inflation rate. If they are not worried it is probably because they have what I term the banker's attitude toward debt. They simply look at the market value of the assets against which that debt has been taken.
When you look at the raw figures it does not seem as though we have very much to worry about in that the debt amounts to about 17 per cent or 18 per cent of total assets, being the book value of Canadian farms at this time. However, most farms that are active and growing carry far more than 17 per cent of their assets in the form of debt. Certainly beginning farmers will be carrying as much as 75 per cent of their total net worth in the form of debt. If you do some very rough calculations you will quickly see why some of the people who have been in business for only the past ten or 15 years are very concerned this spring.
For ease of calculation let us use $100,000 as a base, and I realize that the average farm in Canada is two to four times that amount. We can quickly see that if 50 per cent of the farm is tied up in debt, the interest payment each year at current rates will be around $10,000. Therefore, you have $10,000 interest on a $100,000 investment. The very efficient farmers in my part of the country on the prairies are very lucky if they can turn over their capital once every five or six years, and the average is to turn over the capital about every ten years. If we take it on a once in five year base, which is extremely efficient, half of the farmer's total income goes out in the form of interest payments. As I have said before, interest payments represent the greatest expense of most farmers in Canada today.
When a farmer gets into a situation in which markets have been bad for two or three years, or when the market suddenly drops, and I am thinking now of places like the maritimes where potato growers have had three bad years in terms of market prices or the prairies where the U.S. boycott has now cut the price, and considering the prospect of a drought, this increase will probably not be adequate. While this particular change in the Farm Improvement Loans Act will be welcomed, and the funds will probably be used, when we consider the situation that exists in the country more than likely it will not be adequate. Lack of income has to be made up by borrowings so we must have on hand the kind of economic tools necessary to handle that kind of situation.
While I support the amendment that has been made to the act I suggest it does not go far enough to deal with the situation that exists now, this spring. If we continue to see the world grain price decline, along with a drought, this will be totally inadequate, and I would hope we would have some additional legislation, perhaps a combination of amendments

May 16, 1980
Farm Improvement Loans Act
to the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Farm Credit Corporation Act, to deal with these situations which I foresee developing here and now in this country.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a few remarks to make about Bill C-27, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The purpose of the legislation, which was first enacted in 1945, and the value of it and the use it has been put to since, have been covered by previous speakers and I do not want to prolong this debate by going over them but 1 think there are a few points that need to be made in connection with the bill.
Farmers today are facing increased costs. The same is true of many other segments of our economy. Farmers today need money in order to operate more than they ever needed it before. They need money for fuel, for fertilizer, repairs to machinery and for labour, in order to get a crop into the ground and then to harvest it. Capital has become a greater factor in the time that I have been part of the farming community.
Farm improvement loans have been very useful to me in the past. The first loan I ever had was a farm improvement loan. At that time the interest rate was 5 per cent and the maximum amount was $7,500. In 25 years the limit has reached $100,000 and the rate is set at no more than one per cent above the prime rate. I do not consider myself ancient or over the hill, Mr. Speaker, but in the time I have been farming things have changed dramatically. This bill proposes to increase the loan limit from $75,000 to $100,000, the increase being over three times the amount available under the Farm Improvement Loans Act when I first sought a loan.
Financing has become a very important part of the farming operation so the bill is very appropriate in that it will help deal with some of the problems that farmers have in coping with increasing costs. Not only have input costs gone up but so have capital costs, machinery costs, and land prices. The increased limit is therefore welcomed.
I could give the House some figures to illustrate how costs have risen in the past couple of years. In the calendar year 1978 they increased 18.7 per cent over 1977 for the country as a whole. The ipcrease for the year 1979 over 1978 was 15.5 per cent. This increase of 15 per cent to 20 per cent per annum shows that there will be a need for increased borrowings of the same magnitude if farmers are to be able to stay in business.
This bill is|very relevant to the large rural riding of Port-gage-Marquette in Manitoba which I represent, Mr. Speaker. For Manitoba farmers the increase in operating expenses for 1978 over 1977 was 17.4 per cent, and for 1979 over 1978 the increase was 14.1 per cent. These are substantial increases in farm costs, Mr. Speaker.
I see that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is in the House, Mr. Speaker. I was somewhat disappointed that the initial payment was not set higher. True, it is 25 cents per bushel more than it was a year ago. Very soon
after the initial payment was set a year ago it was increased by 50 cents per bushel, so really the initial payment announced some time ago for the coming crop year is less than farmers are receiving as the initial payment in the current crop year. That is very distressing in light of the way current costs have increased. There could be a good case for increasing the initial payment given the fact that world prices for grain have, if anything, increased. Prices are certainly not any less now than they were a year ago when the initial price was set at 25 cents per bushel higher than now I would urge the minister to look at this seriously and as quickly as he possibly can.


Eugene Whelan: He is, and he is very much aware of it.


Charles James Mayer: I hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) commenting that he is doing that. 1 hope the minister will give his support to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) who is responsible in this chamber for the Canadian Wheat Board, in order to see that such an increase is allowed.


Eugene Whelan: It will be done.


Charles James Mayer: If that is the case it is certainly welcome news, and the sooner it is announced, the better. It is one thing to increase loan guarantees through a bill such as this, and it is certainly needed, but farmers need more income. If they can be assured of a higher initial price, that is certainly welcome news. If that is the case, then the sooner the announcement is made the better, and I will look forward to it.
While I have the attention of the Minister of Agriculture I would urge him to bring forward at the earliest opportunity the meat import law referred to in the Speech from the Throne. I do not know whether the minister remembers, but my first contact with him was some three or four years ago on that very issue. It was one cold winter evening in Winnipeg. The beef industry in this country was going through some very bad times in part because Australia and New Zealand were literally clobbering our producers with excess imports. I might say that at that time the minister was not very receptive to our pleas that he control the imports. He had the vehicle to do so. He did not need a beef import law but could have done it under the Export and Import Permits Act. In fact he ended up doing that some time later using the Export and Import Permits Act. Before the restriction was imposed on the massive quantities of beef that the Oceanic countries were sending to Canada, some serious damage was inflicted upon the beef industry. Indeed, the industry has not fully recovered yet from the damage done by those massive imports in 1975-76. I would urge the minister to bring forward legislation as quickly as he can so that our producers can be assured of a future for the beef industry in this country.
This is the type of legislation that farmers need to enable them to stay in business without having to borrow so much money. It is one thing to borrow money and another to pay it back. What we need, in order to pay it back, is a means of generating income. A program to increase the initial payment for wheat which would let producers know that they will receive at least as much as they have this year in their initial
May 16, 1980

payment, and a program to assure the beef industry that there will not be a repeat of the 1975-76 situation, are badly needed. If the minister brings such legislation forward I can assure him that we on this side of the House will support it, provided it is drafted to give some sensible quotas to offshore imports.
It is very important at the present time that such legislation be brought forward because of the serious drought condition in western Canada. It is bad in my part of the country and I am sure it is even worse in southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta. There is virtually no grass. At this time of year producers decide how many heifers to keep as replacements, and what the size of their cow herd will be a couple of years ahead in order to supply the consumer with beef even further ahead. The borrowing limit can be set as high as we want and things made attractive for borrowing, but if there is no assurance that the producer can pay it back, and that the markets will be available all is for naught. Legislation should be brought forward quickly so that it can be debated and passed and beef producers assured of a market if they decide to increase their cow herd by breeding more heifers. This is a particularly critical point at this time of year, in view of the grass conditions in western Canada. Roughly three-quarters of the cow herd in Canada is located in the three prairie provinces, so it is an important issue at this time.
Another matter that 1 should like to touch upon briefly is the question of grain transportation. Western Canadian producers have been missing markets because they have not been able to get their grain to deep sea ports for export. Had they been able to do so, not only would they have been able to contribute to their community but to the whole country.
I have seen conservative estimates of lost sales of something in the order of half a billion dollars for the last two crop years. The possibility of potential sales lost must also be considered because there is no incentive for producers to grow grain if their graineries are full. Had the grain been moved, of course there would have been additional production which would have accounted for another half a billion dollars in sales.
When one considers we should have sold an additional $1 billion worth of grain that not only would have benefited the areas in western Canada but would have been of tremendous benefit to the whole country in terms of helping our balance of payments, helping the value of our money and helping our interest rates, therefore making it less necessary for people to borrow the money. With that kind of income added to our balance of payments, one could make a very good case that our interest rates would not have needed to go as high as they have in the past few months. Therefore grain transportation plays a very important and vital part in keeping producers in business and in seeing that they earn enough money to repay the loans that they make under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
There is one other comment I would like to make concerning the farmers' ability to produce. On the average we are served very well by our farming community in this country. We are among the top two or three countries of the world in terms of
Farm Improvement Loans Act
food. For instance, on the average we spend somewhat less than 20 per cent of our disposable income on food. This is an average, and it is not intended to imply that there are not people in Canada who are having trouble feeding themselves on the income they receive. But this only tells part of the story, because not only do we spend a small percentage of our income on food, but when we spend it we are able to purchase an exceptional variety of foods, we are able to purchase foods out of season, we get exceptional packaging of goods, and we eat a lot of food away from home in restaurants. This is all included in the less than 20 per cent of our disposable income spent on food.
One of the ways one can define a developed country is to talk about the percentage of gross national product that a country spends on food. If we have to spend 50 or 60 per cent of our working hours feeding ourselves we would not have time for coloured televisions, vacations, and all the things we take for granted here in Canada. We would all have to be hoeing our gardens after supper so as to feed ourselves. I do take a lot of pride in being a farmer when I think that I have had a chance to contribute to the standard of living that we enjoy in this country. If it were not for the fact that we are as efficient as we are as farmers, we would not be in that happy situation in Canada.
I support the bill in principle. I welcome the proposal that the borrowing limit be raised from $75,000 to $100,000. I was pleased to hear the minister say that at committee he would entertain any amendments that would be of benefit to the farming community. That is a very welcome and open attitude, and it is the kind of attitude we have in the agricultural community. There is less partisanship and certainly as much good will in the agricultural community in terms of the political part of it as there is in any other segment of our economy. I think the minister's statement to that effect is welcome, and I certainly intend to hold him to it if there are some amendments that come forward at committee that are likely to be of benefit to the farmers.


Mr. Bill Mcknight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to reinforce and reiterate some of the fine remarks that have been made by the members of my party, namely, the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King), the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), and the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer). We support this legislation. It is an ongoing piece of business but continues to appear every three years. The tone of the remarks made by all sides of this House indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), how important the people of rural Canada feel about the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
This is legislation that has been here since 1945. It has served the farmers of Canada, and the farmers of my region of Canada very well over that period of time. But I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture, in the spirit of co-operation that always develops between himself and members of my party, that because of the guarantee that is placed, because of the involvement of the Government of Canada in guaranteeing

May 16, 1980
Farm Improvement Loans Act
loans through the Farm Improvement Loans Act, an onus be put on the banks to make this farm improvement loan scheme available to farmers.
There are several different kinds of loans and there are several different reasons for refusals, but usually the refusal is because the banking industry has the ability to make more profit from a different type of loan. Because of the involvement of the government and the guarantees placed by the government on the farm improvement loans, I think it is incumbent upon the government to make a very strong request of the banking community that these loans be extended at all times to farmers who qualify.
I would like to list some of the applications of the Farm Improvement Loans Act and some of the numbers and usages in my province of Saskatchewan. In the year 1978 there were 7,438 purchases of farm implements. There were 276 loans for land clearing under the farm improvement act. There were 238 loans for purchase of livestock. There were 13 loans for major repair and overhaul of implements. There were 1,107 loans made for the purchase of combines, and 179 loans for hay bailers.
When one considers there are 150,000 permit book holders in western Canada and probably 60 per cent of those permit book holders are in the province of Saskatchewan, it is a very small number of people who are taking advantage of the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I know that it is not because they want to pay higher interest rates, but because of the needs of the banking industry-and I recognize it as other people do- to make a profit. Farmers seem to be the only ones who go into something for exercise. The banks do not go into things for exercise; their motive is profit. I think those numbers indicate that there may be a need for the government to request that the banks make these loans available to farmers and cattlemen regardless of the interest rate if they qualify.
I agree with the need for a national food policy, but the people who seem to be the most vocal and most persuasive when it comes to a national food policy are consumers. We realize everyone has to buy food, but the problem is that consumers demand cheap food. Again, I think it is incumbent upon the government-and 1 know that the Minister of Agriculture believes this-to guarantee a stable agricultural community. One cannot do that with a promise of cheap food.
We have a commitment or a trust placed on those of us in Canada because of our wealth and our natural resource of land to assist in feeding the hungry world. The implication that goes with this is a great challenge to producers. But producers will only assist in the need for feeding a hungry world if, at the same time, they make a profit on their operations. The need for a strong agricultural community, be it grain, hogs, or cattle, demands there must be a profit in order for them to maintain their survival as farmers. In this way we hope to contribute to the hungry of the world.
I do condemn the government, for its cheap food policy and I know the Minister of Agriculture cannot take total responsibility because we know he is a man of good faith and has a deep understanding for the farmers' problems. However, we
must have the ability to back up the Minister of Agriculture so that he can make his concerns and the concerns of us all felt in the present government. We find that the present government is lacking greatly in concerns for people of the soil. Whether they be in the hog industry, the cattle industry or in any method of growing food. It is of concern to us and I know it is of concern to the minister. Therefore, we must make a commitment here to assist him if he has any trouble convincing his cabinet colleagues of the needs of agriculture.
I would like to talk briefly about farming and small business. Many people who are not familiar with the business of agriculture do not think of it as a business. Small business and farming go hand in hand. Members of the farm community consider themselves small businessmen. They are like small businessmen in other areas of endeavour who are not asking for a handout. They are not asking for something for nothing. What they are really asking for is the ability to be left to function without the heavy hand of government and without the heavy hand of bureaucracy. They want to be given the tools to do the job of feeding a hungry world. They will be able to do that as long as the red tape, the bureaucracy and some of the large things that come from big government that bother small businessmen, are kept away from small businessmen, which includes farmers. There is no way we can consider the tools needed for big business and those needed for small business in the same breath. That is why the Farm Improvement Loans Act along with the Farm Credit Corporation is of great assistance in agriculture.
The Farm Credit Corporation has served us well in Canada over the last number of years, but there has been a problem in interpretation. It should not be necessary for someone starting in the business of agriculture or farming to provide two half sections to purchase one, to put up double security to enable him to be eligible for a farm credit loan. Farm credit loans are there and are given in good faith.
If there was a young farmer in the minister's district who wanted to start farming and he had a quarter, 200 acres, or however land is measured there, the minister would be able to judge this young farmer or businessman. He would be known in the district. The Minister of Agriculture or anyone else in that community would be able to tell the credit supervisor of the Farm Credit Corporation whether that young person would be a success in business.
1 would ask the minister to consider having four neighbours of a young or beginning farmer sign a pledge, and maybe put up a $25 bond that they would guarantee and do what they could to assist the young farmer getting into the business of agriculture, rather than make the young farmer put up a half section or section in order to buy a quarter or another half section. If you limit the need for excessive security and have this type of pledging, it would assist the young farmer in his operation. It would go a long way toward guaranteeing and assisting that young man or woman to be successful in the business. I do not want to carry on too long-
May 16, 1980


Eugene Whelan: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The minister says "Hear, hear!". 1 have been very kind. 1 have not said anything the minister would not say to me if he was on this side. I wish to take a few moments to go back and talk about farming as a business.
Farming today in my constituency and area involves a total investment of $500 to $600 an acre in order to have a viable and operating farm. The average farm is around 800 to 900 acres. It is worth about half a million dollars. You must consider the cost of machinery. Comparing the potential cost of machinery now with last year, machinery prices in 1980 are up 10 per cent to 15 per cent over what they were in 1979.
There has been an increase in the cost of farm labour of about 7 per cent in 1980 over 1979. Petroleum prices have increased. Electricity has increased. The cost of input is greater now than it ever was. As a matter of fact the cost of input in crop production has increased since 1973 by about 105 per cent. It is incumbent upon the Minister of Agriculture to assist his constituents, who happen to be the farmers of Canada, to take a look at the commitment made by his government in the campaign in February, 1979, the commitment that they would endeavour to bring in a two-price wheat system which would add stability to the marketplace and give protection to the consumer.
The commitment was made to the two-price system so the government would maintain it for domestically produced nonfeed wheat. I do not know whether the minister had any discussions with the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, but they would like to maintain a protection from high world prices for the consumers, and they would like to give the producers the ability to achieve the same prices as high export prices would give them.
1 find some difficulty with the statement that, now that the price of a bushel of grain is being increased $1, the price of a loaf of bread will increase five cents to the consumer. The Minister of Agriculture knows that is not true. He knows, as we know, that it represents only about 2.3 cents or 2.2 cents increase per loaf if you raise the price of a bushel of wheat $1.
I would like the minister to do something else which his government promised during the campaign, that is, establish a commission to give fair and accurate information on the difference between the farm gate price for food produced in agriculture and the retail price.


Eugene Whelan: That's coming.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The minister says that is coming. We on this side welcome it. I would like to talk about something else that is apparently coming. During the mini-budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), one thing among others that was left out came to my attention. After using several of our proposals in the budget that was defeated in December, in their mini-budget, 1 had hoped they would use another one, to defer up to $100,000 in capital gains for farmers retiring. This would assist young farmers becoming involved in the business. It would decrease, or at least not
_____________1179
Farm Improvement Loans Act
increase, the cost of entering the business of farming. As it is now, farmers retiring consider the cost of capital gains in the price at which they sell their farm. They take that into consideration. 1 have not heard the minister say that is coming, but I certainly hope it is.
1 conclude by saying that we on this side support the bill. I do not want to make my friends from the Atlantic region feel bad, but I would appreciate it if the minister of Agriculture could increase the upper limits of the Farm Improvement Loans Act to the same degree as the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I think the additional $50,000, from $100,000 to $150,000, would certainly have been a great benefit to the agricultural industry. As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, $100,000 does not go far in meeting the cost of fertilizer, the cost of pesticides, and the increasing cost of fuel. So perhaps the minister would ask his colleagues; we would certainly support him.
One other thing. I would ask the minister to use his good offices when it comes to protecting producers of cattle. I am sure he is aware of what I have in mind when it comes to extending to cattlemen and farmers the right of protection which other producers have in the market place from foreclosures. I am talking about the packing industry and money lent by banks on the word "procure" rather than "purchase" of cattle. I think the minister would find there is unanimous support on this side; I know there is some support on his side, and we gather we may be able to get this change made.
Once again, I endorse this bill with reservation. I commend the minister for his work and commit myself to assisting him in a spirit of good will to making any improvements which may be necessary.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for just a few moments as it certainly is not the intent of the opposition to hold up the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some have a baker turned into a farmer.


Walter David Baker: I am surprised the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is not too familiar with the riding in which he resides from time to time. As he should be aware if he drives outside the area where he and I both live, there is a very large agricultural area. As you yourself are aware, Mr. Speaker, there is a very large area- the city of Nepean itself, the township of Goulburn, the township of Rideau, the township of Osgoode, have some of the finest agricultural land in Ontario. We are rather proud of this, but that is not the reason I rise. I rise, Mr. Speaker, to indicate to the minister that we want him to have passage of this bill today because we think it is important that he has it today. We also want him to have the next bill, the livestock assistance legislation, today, and we do not intend to impede the passage of that bill, either.
I want to point out to the minister and ask him to recall, if he would, the exchange which took place today between the

May 16, 1980
Farm Improvement Loans Act
hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans), as well as the exchange I had with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the question period. It must be disturbing to Canadian farmers if they follow what was said-and I am sure they will-that the Bank of Canada is intervening with respect to the interest rate situation so that the farmers of the country, as well as others, are not going to have the advantage which exists today in the situation of interest rates going down. In other words, they are being denied the normal attrition of interest rates, which I think is important.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has been with me throughout my constituency, as he well recalls, and he met the delegation of farmers who are very much concerned about interest rates and how they affect them in their operations. I rise to commend that to the Minister of Agriculture as we give approval to his bill and the other one today. These are very important pieces of legislation.
One other matter which I am happy to see-and in this I join the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton)-is that the regulatory power is moving from the Department of Finance to the Department of Agriculture where it really belongs. 1 hope the government will take into account what my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said about the appropriateness of gathering these matters in the department where they would seem to have the greatest impact and the greatest place.
I would be grateful if the minister would at least consider that in promulgating regulations under this bill to the extent that it is possible, consideration be given to the advance publication of any regulation that may be made under this statute, or any other statute over which he has jurisdiction, perhaps even in The Canada Gazette-I know that isn't family reading at nights around the dinner table, but in The Canada Gazette or in the farm publications, in this particular case-so that in advance of the impact on the agriculture community it will have the benefit of the opportunity to consult with the government with respect to the impact of regulations made from time to time. As the minister knows full well, that is an important part of the legislative apparatus and it is a part of the legislative apparatus which sort of sneaks up on people. It is not done here in the House of Commons. 1 wish he would take those two matters into consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak just for a few moments in this debate on a matter which is important, and I hope that the speeches which have been made on both sides of the House today will indicate to an even greater degree than has been the case heretofore that the food industry does not begin at the refrigerator door. Indeed, there is a great deal of risk with respect to the food industry that other businesses and other callings do not face. We intend to give passage to this bill forthwith, and if the parliamentary secretary would call the next bill he has on his plate, we intend to deal quickly with that as well.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion (Mr. Whelan) agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


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


LIVESTOCK FEED ASSISTANCE ACT
Eugene Whelan: that Bill C-15, to amend the Livestock Feed Assistance Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: For too many years Canadians have been force-marched into a measurement system they neither know, understand nor, in my view, need. In addition, converting to metric has been an irritating, frustrating and very costly experience to many millions of people in this country?
I am serving notice this afternoon that we Canadian consumers do not like the way the previous Trudeau administra-


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
David Michael Collenette: On a point of order, and just for the record, Mr. Speaker, I think we should agree to stand motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall item No. 1 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


METRIC SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT
[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTED INTRODUCTION ON VOLUNTARY BASIS Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the introduction of the metric system of measurement should be done on a voluntary basis.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring democracy to metrication in this country.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 16, 1980

tion imposed metric conversion on this land without any consultation with Parliament, other than in a most strictly formal sense. There was no desire by the previous Liberal government to allow a full debate in this House to assess the human impact of metric conversions. On the only two occasions that I know of that the subject of metric conversion came before the House, it was a time exactly like this, the ghetto hour of Friday afternoon between four o'clock and five o'clock.
In fact the last time was in 1975 on a Friday afternoon, March 17, St. Patrick's Day, somewhere around 3.30 or four in the afternoon. One can imagine how much interest and attention were being paid to the subject then.
Any amateur observer of the proceedings of the this chamber will know that a so-called debate during this hour is about as exciting as watching a casket warp. Still, this desperate hour represents the very first time that Parliament has examined the human factor in going metric. I regard this intervention as merely an opening shot in the debate on the need for voluntary metric conversion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: The intent of this motion is to impress on the Parliament of Canada the need to listen to the people of this country regarding their resentment of the way metrication has been imposed on Canadians. I do not think it is widely known that this imposition of metric on the Canadian people has been the greatest intervention by a government in the lives of more than 20 million Canadians since World War II. Total metrication was not only a creature of the former Trudeau government, but it remains a present commitment and, indeed, an indelible commandment of the current administration: proceed, and damn the torpedoes. My notice of motion is, as I say, to bring some democracy and some sanity to the whole metrication process.
Let me refer to the metric overview board's review of the metrication process and recommendations for action, and while mentioning this report which, incidentally, has not yet been made public by the government, may I on behalf of many members of this House of Commons commend its authors, Mr. Gordon MacEachern and Mr. Rex Werts, for their thorough examination of this very important subject affecting the lives of so many Canadians.
This matter of voluntary conversion is one of the greatest importance. Time and time again in the white paper of 1970 when it came before this House, emphasis was laid on the fact that the discussed change to metric was to be achieved by voluntary means. This promise soon became lost in the actions which followed. Metric Commission officials continue to refer to actions being voluntary because the consensus principle was applied. The metric overview board has insisted that due to the actions of government this is only voluntary in the old army sense: you have no choice but to volunteer.
Throughout its work the overview board has upheld the definition of voluntary used by the American National Metric Council: "Voluntary: freedom of choice as to if and when conversion is to be carried out". The executive director of the Metric Commission I have never met, but the commission
Metric Conversion
itself certainly has been almost unaware of the rights and opinions of the people of Canada.
In more recent times the commission has appeared to lose credibility as it chose to ignore the rising opposition to metrication either at home, in the United Kingdom, or in the United States. As the United States is by far our paramount trading partner in every respect, 1 think it behoves us as a matter of common sense to bring our metric posture into line with America's, and right away. Whether we like it or not, the North American economy is so interlocked with so many pervasive linkages, products, factories, corporations, equipment, communications, information systems, advanced technology, research and development, community of regulations, measurement standards and statistics that, in my view, any basic move to use a different measurement system entirely here is almost incomprehensible. The United Kingdom has recently moved to slam the brakes on metric for the next ten years, and now-would you believe?-Japan, one of our largest importers and exporters, has admitted metric defeat.
During a meeting in July, 1979, in Sacramento, California, a member of the California Metric Conversion Council told the group that he had been informed that Japan had enacted legislation which now legalizes the use of traditional, customary measurement units once again. Some of the old units would be used along with some of the metric ones as they had done before a number of years ago. According to the report, the relegalization of the old units took place only after considerable public pressure was brought to bear on the law makers for the last two years. That is the kind of public pressure that I hope we are able to launch here in this House of Commons right now.
Japan has had confusion in its measurement field for many years, apparently, since it first began to utilize metric in the pre-World War I days. In any event, industries held on to some of the nationalized metric units, but they did not agree with the European metric in a number of ways. They even came up with a metric screw thread in Japan for industry which did not coincide with the French-European metric thread sizes, so export customers like the Americans who purchased Japanese cars and motorcycles later requiring repair parts soon learned that there would be problems if they mixed the two types of metric nuts and bolts.
What did the Americans do? Not agreeing with either system, they came up with a so-called modified metric system, and now we have three different kinds of nuts and bolts, and all three thread types are different and cannot be interchanged.
The nationalization of the metric system has been going on almost as long as metric has been known in many countries around the world. Most nations have provisions for changing metric units to suit themselves. We have a metric system, the system internationale, which is used, to my knowledge, in only three other countries of the world, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, and now we are going into metric, so I do not buy the argument that Canada's going metric puts us in step with our trading partners around the world.
1182

May 16, 1980
Metric Conversion
Canadians are not being asked-they are being forced-to abandon a lifetime of tradition, education, knowledge and experience in one measurement field, without any real proof that the new system will be of even marginal benefit. The study our research office did hits the bottom line of concern to many of us on this side of the House. There has been no estimate of how much the switch to metric is costing Canada, but estimates of the cost of going totally metric in the United States are as high as $100 billion-that is with a "B".
There is no question that conversion is very costly for a country which is struggling to keep inflation below the doubledigit level. What is happening, in my view, is that a non-elect-ed body has proceeded with plans to convert the country to the metric system, so far without any curbs by the House of Commons. It is costing governments, private companies, corporations, stores, service stations, mechanics and others millions of dollars to convert to a new measurement, all at a very difficult time in Canada's economic life.
If the metric momentum has grown to the point where we cannot throw the process into reverse-and I do not suggest for a moment that we do-then Parliament must have a chance to examine the implications of going totally metric and, at the very least, 1 believe this government must listen to the people's real concerns, their complaints and confusion about metrication, before the scheduled completion of the timetable in 1982.
One area of metrication which officially concerns me as opposition critic on consumer affairs is the impact the changeover is having on shoppers across this country. My colleague, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), has eloquently set out his community's woes as one of the three metric testing centres in Canada. I assume that the strong feelings of Peterborough's consumers and the business community would be echoed in Sherbrooke and Kamloops, the other two test centres. 1 certainly know how the vast majority of my people regard metric shopping in Hamilton-Wentworth.
It is not just the inconvenience of mentally trying to convert in the supermarkets that concerns me. It is what more and more consumers are beginning to realize is a substantial rip-off by manufacturers of many products as we Canadians pay through the nose for metric labelling, packaging and handling, and the changeover certainly can dramatically be demonstrated with fluid milk. That has not been a happy changeover. Housewives and the consumers are constantly facing ever higher prices for fluid milk. With the switch to smaller litres which require 12 per cent more cartons and 12 per cent greater handling than pint and quart cartons, consumers in each province found the smaller cartons actually costing about as much as the former larger standard ones.
Every province has the problem and each one has had to find some way to ease the blow of this completely unnecessary new cost, at least for the moment. The cost increase, however, goes on forever and people will pay it. The dairy activities generally come under provincial jurisdiction. The fact is that
processors have been involved in the federal metrication sector and they encourage this metric overview board in its report to see if something could be done in Ontario.
As Ontario represents one third of the nation's population, that alone justified the action. Only the one and two litre cartons, which account for 30 per cent of Ontario's purchase of milk, are involved this year. The three quart plastic jugs are scheduled to be changed to four litre jugs in about two years. Nevertheless, the initial change is calculated to cost the people of Ontario about 6 cents to 7 cents a quart in the first full year, or about $25 million in additional expense. It is estimated that this will rise from $55 million to $65 million once the three quart jug is changed. From the processors' point of view, there is nothing but very sizeable costs for new filling and handling equipment, without any offsetting benefits.
1 should like to interject here one fundamental point. I think we have to make this very clear to consumers, particularly to parents across this country. Arguing as I am against this headlong plunge into the metric system, I would also like hon. members to understand that I do not wish in any way to interfere with our younger generation's total acceptance of metrication. They are growing up in a metric world, but they have a freedom of choice to operate either in the world of metric or with standard imperial measures-a freedom of choice which is denied to many millions of other Canadians who have not had the luxury of metric teaching. Actually, the parents themselves are often being converted by their kids enthusiasm for the system. One fellow I know in my riding has three children aged 6, 15 and 17, and they think he is an old fogey because he still has to convert to metric.
While I have sympathy for those who come a cropper over metric, these minor irritants over conversion are not, in my view, reason enough to hold it up, or even to stop and re-examine it, although you do run into some interesting situations. I can think of one of my constituents who works at the Flamborough Downs racetrack in my riding who broke people up one morning complaining it was 18 kilometres below zero. I also know of an unfortunate lady in Ancaster who was recently bereaved and had neglected to pay her hydro bill. When Ontario Hydro sent her a reminder of payment, the lady returned the money forthwith, unaware that Ontario Hydro's billing system had gone metric last September. The lady dutifully paid the date-the thirteenth day of the ninth month-$13.09. Hydro still came back at her to forward the remaining $5, which she did, but by now the episode left everyone scratching their heads.
My thanks to Ottawa Citizen columnist Dave Brown for this gem. It happened here in Ottawa recently to Mr. John Shoul-dice of Crescent Drive. I am not sure if it is in your riding, Mr. Speaker. He was frustrated by a bit of metrication. He was trying to translate a litre into an American quart. He went to the source, the Metric Commission. As happens every time when you go to the Metric Commission with a specific request of this kind, you will get hesitation, and then the answer that nobody knows the answer. So he called The Citizen, and they brought out their handy little pocket calculator. It said that an American gallon equals 3.7854 litres. Our friend went back to
May 16, 1980

the Metric Commission, told them that and they confirmed that, yes, an American quart was exactly equal to one litre less a little bit. Mr. Shouldice, needless to say, was not very impressed.
Millions of Canadians have been metrified about what has been happening to their way of life, but the fact is that metric is a way of life, it is a fact of life in this country. 1 do not believe that we can put the toothpaste back into the tube, metric size or otherwise. Our government's minister of state for small business and industry, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Eluntington), has stated that he is convinced that international realities, present and future, "will demand that Canadians accept the fact that metric is here to stay."
It may well be that total metric conversion in Canada is inevitable. But that may take another 20 or 30 years. In the meantime, I see no reason for the Metric Commission and this government to continue to force-march the Canadian people through a total conversion to metric. There is clear evidence of massive public resistence. Metrication is economically unrealistic in many sectors of Canadian society. Many of our middled aged and senior citizens are needlessly bothered, inconvenienced, angered and confused by a system they do not understand and never cared to know about. Above all, the mandatory imposition of metric, I feel, has contributed to this Liberal government's image of bureaucratic interference in the lives of the average Canadian.
It was in the famous debate on St. Patrick's Day on March 17, 1975, that the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kem-pling), as reported at page 4162 of Hansard, said:
We should not be proceeding by order in council or resolution: we should be proceeding by means of a bill. We should have a bill which sets out all the details of the program. The guidelines and the program should be laid down so that we may proceed in an orderly fashion. Instead, we have a loosely worded order in council which allows the Metric Commission to proceed as it sees fit. I believe it would have been better to have a bill, to have a full debate and then to have the Metric Commission appear before a committee and reappear each year to justify its program and expenditures. We sec in this commission another government body removed from the scrutiny of Parliament. We see it as a group that is a law unto itself and which proceeds as it sees fit.
I am sure that many hon. members who were here during that debate in 1975 quickly approved in principle the guidelines for metric conversion. There was nothing mandatory mentioned there, and then the matter was referred to the other place. The Metric Commission has never looked back since. I think every party in this House must shoulder responsibility for this oversight. We were taking far too much at face value without probing to see what lay underneath.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say that this metric issue cannot be treated lightly. It is a matter of grave importance to many Canadians. The spirit of my notice of motion is to urge the Metric Commission, through the House, to develop a public consensus as to, and support for, a new metric policy approach for Canada. 1 believe that this is ultimately the responsibility of Parliament representing all the people of Canada. Accordingly, 1 recommend that this House give serious consideration to an early and full discussion and debate on metrication in Canada by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Metric Conversion
I want to see the rest of the Metric Commission's timetable in all the sectors of the Canadian economy brought before hon. members with a view to getting a consensus in the House on current and future metric policy. Above all, I want to see the rest of Canada's metric program made responsive to the needs and the desires of the Canadian people-a voluntary approach to metrication as set out in the 1970 white paper. In short, as I began these remarks, 1 want to see some democracy brought to metric in this country.


Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say that I am a little confused by the remarks of the hon. member on the other side who somehow thinks we can find it in our hearts to sit between two systems. I must also make a confession to the House that I was converted to metric by my own family because I, too, resisted the thought at first, but they convinced me that my thinking was not in tune with the world.
The Weights and Measures Act of 1871 made the metric system legal for use in Canada. It was amended in 1971 to specify the international system of units as the improved system to be used. The policy that metric conversion was inevitable and in the national interest was established with the House leaders of all parties on January 16, 1970, speaking in support of the white paper on metric conversion in Canada.

I think it is well worth noting that the reason the white paper first came to be produced was in response to representations which had been pressed upon the government from widely diverse segments of the nation. These included such groups as the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Home and School Association, the Agricultural Institute of Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce representing the business community, the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, and the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. These learned groups had given the matter some great consideration. They had become convinced of the practical benefits to be derived from a system with advantages that range from simplifying the learning process in school to improving and consolidating Canada's competitive position in world trade.
We should also keep in mind that there are some 102 voluntary sector committees with over 2,000 volunteer representatives from industry, labour, consumer and governmental bodies. Metric Commission Canada has had the over-all strategy of involving every sector from every region of Canada as early as possible in planning for metric conversion. All sector plans are developed through a consensus process, and voluntary sector committees take the responsibility for monitoring the implementation of their plans. The voluntary participation approach is characterized by plans which are developed by those who will have to implement them. This helps to ensure that the benefits are achieved at minimal costs. This plan is proceeding forthwith.
Sector plans have resulted from voluntary consensus on the means and timing of their conversions. In the case of prepack-
1 184

May 16, 1980
Metric Conversion
aged goods, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act has required a metric contents declaration since March, 1976. A program of guideline dates for metric conversion recommended by Metric Commission Canada, after consulting with industry, labour and consumer groups, was approved by the government and debated in the House of Commons on March 17, 1975. I am not sure of the time of day on which that occurred.
The Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs studied this matter at length and voted unanimously in favour of it. It reported back to the House of Commons on December 17, 1976, with a recommendation that the House consider the advisability of adopting this program and also introducing additional legislation to metric conversion. Subsequently the Metric Conversion (Statute Law Amendment, 1976) Act was passed by the House of Commons on July 25, 1977, and received royal assent on August 5, 1977. The Metric Conversion (Statute Law Amendment, 1976) Act which was debated in the House over a period of nine months, gave the governor in council the power to set dates in any sector of the economy after which the use of the customary or imperial system would be illegal.
Out of a total of 33 sectors which have published metric conversion plans, there are only three sectors for which regulations have been issued under the Weights and Measures Act establishing cut-off dates for the sale and advertising of goods in other than the metric system. Regulations were requested by the working group on scales in the retail food industry, by the home furnishing and piece goods industry, and by the petroleum refineries wholesalers and gasoline service stations. These committees have consumer and industry representatives as well as appropriate government representation on them.
The moves to make metric conversion mandatory were initiated by the industries concerned and not by Metric Commission Canada. Where regulatory action has been requested, the industries cited are concerned about achieving an orderly conversion without unfair competition. They preferred government action to ensure that the ground rules for metric conversion are the same for all in the industry, thus reducing the possibility of consumer confusion to a minimum. We respectfully submit that that is a very logical and excellent approach.
To go into one further case, the working group on scales in the retail food industry comprises representatives of food retailing chains and independents, scales manufacturing and servicing enterprises, consumers as well as weights and measures regulating authorities. In 1977 it formally requested suitable regulations under the Weights and Measures Act to deal with advertising as well as the conversion of scales which were deemed necessary for achieving a co-ordinated and orderly transition to metric units. I should like to emphasize the fact that the decision to make metric conversion mandatory in this sector was made by the minister of consumer and corporate affairs and the cabinet on the recommendation of the food retailers and with the full support of the Consumers' Association of Canada.
The information I have provided in my remarks shows that the Canadian metric conversion program is almost entirely
voluntary in nature already, and where legislation has been enacted and regulations used, it has been at the request of the interested parties. I should like to submit that we do not need a statute law on voluntary metric conversion because it is mostly voluntary already.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth (Mr. Scott), I should like to indicate that 1 am very pleased to participate in this debate.
First, I would like to comment on the statements made by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters). The hon. member is not dealing according to fact. When he said that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs was unanimous in the passage of that bill out of committee, he was not telling the truth. I was on that committee and 1 fought that-perhaps Mr. Speaker is very much aware of that-along with my colleagues. It was not unanimous and never has been.
Early in the debate the government proposed to pass the bill in 1975, 1976, or whatever it was. It was sort of a conglomeration of weights and measures that was passed at that time. As far as I could understand, certainly it was not a metric bill. But the crucial thing in the passage of that bill was that it was done under closure. Had the government not brought in closure at that time, we would still be debating that bill in the House today. At that time it was Liberal government policy that they were going to force that upon Canadian people.
I just find it intolerable to think that Canadian governments would impose themselves, as the Liberal government has done over several years, on the consumers and business people in Canada. It is abhorrent that anyone would do this. This is why there is so much resistance to this in western Canada. I must rise on every occasion that I can in the House of Commons, at every opportunity, to impress upon the government of the day that consideration must be given to the resistance which is inevitable all over Canada, even in Peterborough, Ontario. They are forcing it upon Canadian people all over Canada, and a tremendous resistance is developing.
I read in the paper this morning where it has been said that there is a new group in the Liberal back benches which is willing to take a new approach to some of Canada's problems.
1 would hope that that new group in the party on the other side would give some consideration to those people, those consumers and business people who want no part of this system.
It has been said and written that one of the great strengths of Canadians is their integrity, steadfastness, strong inherent individualism, and pragmatism. It has been said and written that Canadians have provided ample evidence in the past that they will adapt to change if the change is perceived to be beneficial, but will resist it when it is not. The nub of the argument against the metric system is that the metric system is not perceived to be beneficial among a majority of Canadian people. Is it necessary? I suggest it is not, and it has never
May 16, 1980

been proven to be necessary to the satisfaction of a great number of Canadians.
In the 1970 white paper on metric conversion emphasis was placed on the fact that the change to metric was to be achieved by voluntary means. That is why this motion by my friend and colleague, is so important. Let the Canadian people choose the type of weights and measures they want.
We were told in the debate which took place in 1975-76 that weights and measures for the grain industry were to be changed so as not to cause an extra conversion and in order to avoid mistakes. That was the argument made to us. That is why they wanted to buy grain at the elevators under the metric weights and measures system.
What did we find when we got to the committee? We found that farmers were going to deliver their grain to the elevator where it would be measured under the metric system. It would go through the entire elevator system by the tonne. However, and here is the crunch, the minute the grain went to the railroad and was put into the hopper car it reverted back to the hundred weight. This is what has turned so many people off the metric system, and that error has never been corrected. This posture seems to have been lost in the shuffle and the flurry of executive action which has followed. The system is only voluntary in the old army sense; you have no choice but to volunteer.
Emphasis must be placed on the fact that this system has to be adopted on a voluntary basis. The government and the Metric Commission have demonstrated that they are unaware of the rights and the opinions of the people of Canada. The metric program is losing its credibility because it marches to the tune of a different drummer; it chooses to ignore the rising opposition to metric at home, in the United States and in the United Kingdom.
Today my colleague mentioned the rising opposition in Japan to the metric system there. If this were a universal system it would be different. I have debated this issue with some of those who say we should be selling our grain by the tonne, as is the case all over the world. 1 have said that it causes problems for the farmers because it used to be that when a farmer sold a carload of grain the weight would have four figures ahead of the decimal, and one following. That measurement was in an easy form for calculation, because the four figures before the decimal were bushels and the one after was one-tenth of a bushel. If the figure was .4, in the case of wheat with 60 pounds to the bushel, that meant four tenths of a bushel, or 24 pounds. That was easy to calculate. Now there are two figures ahead of the decimal and three after, and the three after have to be placed over 2,204 pounds because that is what we have in a tonne. Could any person on the other side of the House calculate that in his head without a calculator or a pencil? I would like to see someone do it. This government has taken away a simple system that worked, and has given us a complicated system that does not work.
This is the point 1 want to make, Mr. Speaker. The individual I was talking with said we should be selling our grain by the
Metric Conversion
tonne because in Holland, where he was from, they used the tonne. 1 explained to him the complications this created for the farmers in this country with the three figures after the decimal point having to be placed over 2,204 pounds. He said no, it would be 2,000 pounds. I said that it was 2,204 pounds, that being the tonne we have to deal with. He said that a tonne in Holland was 2,000 pounds. Therefore, anyone who suggests that this is a universal system should take another look at it.
The initial work and planning of the Metric Commission was done in a vacuum, independent of what the people required. What the Metric Commission failed to do was recognize the fact that the United States is not going metric very quickly. Certainly some countries have done so, but the U.S. grassroots have not done so.
When people from the United States come across the border to buy cattle at our auctions they want to know how many pounds an animal has gained per day since birth. They do not want anything to do with kilos. They want to know how that animal has gained in pounds, and that is what affects the price. This is why the auction marts all across western Canada are opposed to this system and what the government has done.
I just wish we could have had some members opposite come out west to meet with some of those people who have to spend thousands of dollars they do not have in order to change their scales, when they see no need for it. As 1 said earlier, if this were a requirement and it provided a benefit, that would be all right, but no one up to the present time has proven that this is a requirement in order to continue in business.
Even leading members of the two United States metric bodies now see a change taking place in the United States. They suggest that this conversion will take anywhere from seven to 20 years; however, the average citizen in the United States says it will never take place.
We have a classic case of Canada being all alone out in left field; everybody else is out of step except our son Johnnie. In the area of 70 per cent of our trade is with the United States, and it is folly to attempt to trade with our major trading partner using a foreign and unfamiliar system of weights and measures. That was the reason given to us for changing to the metric system, in order that we could trade with foreign countries. We now find ourselves using this unfamiliar system in trade with our major trading partner. As one of the metric commissioners said, we are ten years out of step with them. It is utter folly for Canada to allow that kind of situation to develop. The United States is by far our most important trading partner, in every respect, and it behooves us, as a matter of common sense, to bring our metric posture into line with that of the United States.
The North American economy is so interlocked, with products, factories, corporations, equipment, communications, information systems, advanced technology, research and development, measurements and statistics, that any basic move to use a different system out of step is incomprehensible. I fail to see any great advantage in converting to the metric system with such undue haste. We must plan any change in concert with our neighbour and trading partner. If we fail to do so we will disrupt traditional trading patterns and cause turmoil in

May 16, 1980
Metric Conversion
the marketplace. The net effect is that we could end up losing business, and this, coupled with the high cost of purchasing new calibrating equipment, could be a crippling blow to many small businesses.
People have told me that if they are forced to go to the metric system of weights and measures they will go out of business. They have a hard time just keeping their bank accounts in the black, and if they are forced to accept this they will be going into the red. The very great costs of converting to metric have to be retrieved from somewhere, and guess who pays in the long run-the customer will be the fall guy. Additional costs will be passed on to him in the form of higher prices.
Are there any benefits to be derived in our trading markets by going metric? Outside of the United States, the European Economic Community common markets and the remaining OECD markets, all the rest of the world represent 5 per cent of our finished goods exports. What is the wisdom in neglecting and slighting 95 per cent of our trade to concentrate on 5 per cent? Even if there were some benefits to be gained by going metric for trade purposes, is this cause enough to force an entire nation to change its established and known weights and measures? The response is strong to overwhelming to return to the use entirely of imperial standard measures.
In Peterborough the metric people came face to face with civil disobedience to the metric program, and they backed off. The Metric Commission had the power to back up the mandatory metric system with the use of penalties for failure to comply with the law. But, is it the law? Has the principle of the metric program been given a proper airing in Parliament?
I think not. Why did the government choose to bypass Parliament and resort to order in council to achieve its aims? Why is it plowing relentlessly on in a collision course with the people and with public opinion? Why does it not mark time and reassess the damage it is doing to commerce within Canada and outside our borders with our trading partners?
It is not a sign of weakness to admit that you are wrong. Indeed, it is a sign of strength to recognize when you are in error and move to correct an obvious mistake. If more people would recognize error and move quickly to rectify it, there would be less bickering and chaos in our public life.
The Weights and Measures Act of 1971 prescribed the punishment for every person who contravenes any provision of the act or its related regulations. Contravention of the act provides for a fine not exceeding $1,000. Weights and measures inspectors actually attempted to enforce this statute, and only a public outcry caused a temporary halt to enforcement in Peterborough. But the regulation is still on the books. Surely we cannot call a program voluntary when it is backed up by fines of up to $1,000 to make it voluntary.
I want you, Mr. Speaker, to pay special attention to the problems of the many Canadians who are opposed to further implementation of metric weights and measures at this time. I hope that the House will pass this motion proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on this motion because I think it is imperative that we take a very positive position on metrication. Reference has been made to the fact that other nations are not going ahead as fast as Canada. I think it would be only fitting if I read a statement from President Carter, contained in the U.S. Metric Board 1979 Annual Report. He said:
With all the other industrialized nations of the world already using the metric system-or soon to complete their conversion to metrics-we will find ourselves at a serious disadvantage in selling products to other countries if we do not make progress in our own conversion.
At the movies in the United States or Canada, Mr. Speaker, the films are 35 millimetre. Major United States tire manufacturers back in the 1960s started labelling tires for United States made cars in metric. New United States steel companies on the south shore of Lake Michigan are controlled by metric instrument. Since 1975 some of the United States oil companies have been installing instruments which provide metric readings. Service station outlets are converting as fast as pumps are available to them. Metrication has been taught in the United States school system for more than a decade. So the United States is proceeding, Mr. Speaker, and 1 think it is wrong if we Canadians stand still.
At the present time the European Economic Community requires that metric conversion information be included on all non-metric products imported into member countries. Some United States tractor companies have already started making machinery to metric specification. The St. Lawrence Seaway, which was completed in 1959, prefers the metric measure. Channel markers are metric, cargo is in metric tons, and tolls are assessed in metric weights. Even the length of ships is calculated in meters. The U.S. conversion to metric is further along than many members realize.
I realize that some people who did not take metric in school will have difficulty in converting and I sympathize with them, but the metric system has been taught in our schools for several years. Even our highways are marked in metric.
As a farmer, perhaps I must make more conversions than the average citizen. At a recent commodity board meeting of producers in Ontario the vote was three to one to proceed with implementation of the metric system. We have a new generation of farmers, Mr. Speaker, in my operation, and 1 am very pleased that my son who graduated from university was schooled in the metric system. Like the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), when 1 go to the fields 1 must admit that I still have to make conversions. For example, if l need to plant 120 pounds of seed per acre, I now plant 135 kilograms per hectare. It is very simple. If we use 400 pounds of fertilizer per acre we now use 444 kilograms per hectare.


An hon. Member:: Can you say that without reading it?


Ralph Ferguson: If a field was 50 acres it is now approximately 20 hectares. If we used ten pounds of insecticide per acre now it is 11 kilograms per hectare. A steer that used to be marketed at 1,200 pounds is now 545 kilograms.
May 16, 1980

Perhaps some livestock producers and buyers need more time to adapt and this may be where the problem is. A buyer goes into the sales ring to bid on a steer at 78 cents per pound and buys it for $936. In metric, 78 cents per pound would be $1.71 per kilogram but the net proceed to the producer is still $936. 1 believe it is just a matter of time until we adapt and are able to keep abreast of other countries in the world. Perhaps this is one sector of the agricultural industry where patience is needed. Approximately 75 per cent of the agricultural community is already converted to metric. It is wrong to imply that it should be delayed until the rest catch up.
A shift to the voluntary metric conversion process is required. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that conversion to metric is already a voluntary process. Of the 100 sectors only three-gasoline sales by the litre, home furnishings, and retail food scales-are subject to regulation under the Weights and Measures Act of 1971. Only those three are subject to the regulations, so we are in a voluntary process of conversion. In all three of these cases the relevant regulations have been requested from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs by the industries concerned, with the support of the Consumer's Association of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will not be long. There are a few things that I think we ought to bear in mind in this debate on the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth (Mr. Scott). I was rather staggered to learn here today about the system international which was decided upon apparently as the system which should be used in Canada for the conversion, and to learn in particular that it was applicable only in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
1 have had representations made to me about the standards, particularly from the mechanical industries. These pertained to gauges of screws and bolts and the incline of the threads on bolts. There is no universal standard for these particular parts in the mechanical field so that if one were to take a bolt say, from one of the cars imported from Japan, and tried to use it on a nut that had been produced here, both metric size, they probably would not fit because the inclines of the plane of the threads were not identical. There is no standard bolt threading of gauge in metric at the present time. Until those standards are approved, 1 think it is folly to proceed further.
My second observation has to do with the selling of products by dozens. I do not know how many hon. members have noticed, but when one goes to buy flowers, they are not sold in dozens any more. They are sold by dizaines. The price is the same but there are only ten in a bunch. Those are called dizaines. It is the same for eggs.


An hon. Member:: Dizaine!
Metric Conversion


Donald W. Munro: No, dizaine, douzaine, there are douzaines and dizaines but the price remains the same. [English]
The price remains the same, and this 1 suggest is one of the influences causing inflation. Had it been the other way and we get 13, I wonder what a baker's dizaine would be. Would it be 11 ? It could be.
My third comment has to do with this nonsense about voluntarism, or voluntary as in the army voluntary. Actually people have been misusing a term in this House, and I would like to suggest that where we are at this time on the metric is that we are faced with a Hobson's choice. Hobson's choice is generally interpreted as being either this or that. People talk about Catch 22. 1 think that is where we run into a little difficulty, when you divert from that, you are faced with another difficulty. But Hobson's choice, as defined in the shorter Oxford dictionary is as follows:
-the option of taking the one thing offered or nothing.
It is derived I suppose from what Hobson did. He was an ostler who rented horses in Cambridge. When a person went to rent a horse from him he would say, "There is your horse. The first horse inside the stable." That was Mr. Hobson, and that is your choice. This is the choice we have with metric. I see the first actual reference was 1660 when Hobson's choice was as follows:
-chusc whether you will have this or none.
There are other references to Hobson's choice. So Hobson's choice is what we have in the metric system today.
I do feel that we should be very careful about using the word voluntary in this connection because here we are confronted with this. 1 wonder from time to time whether the word imperial as connected with the imperial measure has somebody's back up because the imperial regimes that we knew in the British empire, the French empire and so on have ended. Is it because the word imperial is attached to that expression that it has come to be overturned in the Hobson's choice, and by voluntarism we are now in the thick of it and getting dizaines when we buy flowers instead of dozens.


James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity on my first speech in the House of Commons to congratulate you and your colleagues in the chair. I hope you will carry my felicitations to Madam Speaker who is such an asset to this august chamber.
1 welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion in my maiden speech to the House of Commons as a member of Parliament for the riding of Guelph. The rules governing debate at this time do not permit me to speak about my riding as much as 1 would like to, but the particular subject at hand is one of vital interest to my constituency. My area is heavily populated with small and large businesses that are very much affected by regulations pertaining to weights and measures. The consumer is also very much affected. The Government of Canada has never maintained that conversion to metrication would be a simple matter. Industry in general concedes that

May 16, 1980
Metric Conversion
the project, having progressed to the present stage, should be maintained. The consumer has seen the effects of metrication appearing around us day by day, for instance, the road signs, the weather reports, and some consumer products.
Representing a riding having a large number of persons born outside of Canada brings me in contact with perhaps a degree of metric acceptance that is not present in some locations.
The Canadian General Electric plant in Guelph, 1 am told, uses the metric system completely and it owes many of its invasions into the world of commerce to that fact. One of our large freezer plants in the city of Guelph, the Woods Company, owes a lot of its invasion into the export market because they too are completely metric.
When 1 was listening to my opponents on the other side I had a feeling that 1 was in the past. I felt somewhat like Edison when people wanted to keep the candle and he wanted to bring on electricity. I felt somewhat like Henry Ford when he was trying to produce the motor car, and I also felt somewhat like Orville Wright when people were standing around telling him that his machine would not fly.
With respect to the definition of the voluntary system, 1 think their definition is to be able to volunteer not to be able to do something. The voluntary system that we want to see is the voluntary system to do something which we have all agreed upon, but to be able to do it gradually and in consultation. 1 believe that is the system that we have been trying to put in place.
The first aim was to introduce the metric system and to interpret it in relation to terms that are relevant to daily living. But the older measurements will be with us for a long time to come and, of course, it will be of some inconvenience to make these conversions. 1 do not want to sound like a put down to those people who will have difficulty making those conversions. But where there is a will, there is a way.
I have been making conversions for some years. Most of the international scientific world deals with the metric system. As
the world becomes smaller, we must be able to communicate in a universal language. About 90 per cent of the people in the world use metric measurements for everyday purposes. So it makes sense in the interests of uniformity that Canada should adopt metric measurements.
1 am not one of those metricators who is filled with evangelic zeal nor, I hope, are my honourable opponents ferocious anti-metricants, but 1 am sure that we are all trying to attain the same results. I have said that the hon. member opposite and 1 have different ideas about the voluntary system and 1 will not go into details about that again.
For eight years now people have been asking why are we going metric? The simplest answer is that it makes a lot of sense. Every nation in the world-with the exception of some so small that they are not really significant in terms of international trade-is on the metric system or is committed to converting to it. In spite of what hon. members on the other side of the House say, it is simpler. There are seven base units of measurement in the metric system. With the old imperial system there are 53.
In the United Kingdom some of these imperial units, such as the furlong and the bushel, are no longer legal. The situation in Britain regarding the use of metric measurement has been the subject of a lot of speculation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the House would excuse me if I recognized my mother, who is 91 years old today, and is in the gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.

It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday next at two o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 2(3).
At 5.03 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 20, 1980