1981-12-11

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, every major business group, every major trade union, and every consumer organization has protested the inept, incompetent and totally negative effects of the budget of November 12 on the economy of Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner):
That inasmuch as every item in the budget is interrelated and the effect of each measure creates a problem with other measures, the Minister of Finance today withdraw the entire budget proposal of November 12, hire a whole new budget and tax planning team, and produce a new budget in January.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CHRISTMAS TRAVEL-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the cabinet ministers, after jetting home on government planes, and as they sit down with family and friends to 16-course Christmas dinners, recall the words on tens of thousands of Christmas cards: "Dear Mom, I would have been home for Christmas but the Liberal Party is now taxing my flight. It's just too much Mom when added to the gasoline taxes and the tax increases from the April and October budgets last year. Don't worry, Mom, I will sit quietly alone in my room and finish off your last CARE package. Damn the Liberals, but love to Dad."


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA POST
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, the government refuses to recognize the devastating effects on this country's voluntary groups of its proposed massive increases in postal rates. For example, the $1,200 annual increase in postal costs to the Waterloo regional branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association will make it extremely difficult for that agency to mobilize its 250 volunteers. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That this House urge the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation, the Secretary of State in his role as minister responsible for the voluntary action program, or the Minister of Finance, to stand in his place and tell the volunteers of Canada why this government is ignoring and stifling the giving and caring spirit which are more needed than ever due to unprecedented unemployment and inflation.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under Standing Order 43 on a very urgent matter requiring immediate government action. All CMHC owned and operated apartments located in the lower mainland of B.C., and in many other parts of Canada, are insulated with poisonous urea formaldehyde foam. Since the minister for CMHC, their landlord, provided no hazard warnings to tenants who now suffer health problems, and inasmuch as this is another example of the irresponsibility of this minister and this government which promoted UFFI but refuse to help the victims, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That the minister immediately order CMHC to rip out this foam insulation from all CMHC buildings, compensate for any health problems, and establish this as a precedent for compensating all victims of urea formaldehyde foam insulation.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?

December 11, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, following along the same line as the motion of the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), I should like to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That the provision of the Liberal budget which would tax Canadian forces personnel on CFB flights coming home to visit their families at Christmas be thrown out, preferably together with the Minister of Finance.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the fact that the international biological program has identified the Polar Bear Pass in the Canadian Arctic as one of approximately 140 environmentally sensitive sites that are worthy of protection, and given the fact that the interdepartmental working group has recently issued a report calling for multiple land use in the Pass so as to accommodate the interests of non-renewable resource developers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That the federal government reject the recommendations being made by the working group and immediately take steps to ensure that this environmentally sensitive area will be protected from the future activities of resource developers.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA POST
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, since the Canada Post Corporation has just unveiled its new no-price stamp, with just a maple leaf and the letter "A", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That the House extends its best wishes to the government on the issuing of this new stamp, and trusts that since the former Post Office Department made such an awful mess of delivering letters with stamps on them, the Canada Post Corporation may have better luck delivering stamps with letters on them.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, hundreds of farmers and small business men are meeting daily with chartered accountants and lawyers because of the confusion caused in their operations by the November 12 budget, in annuities, depreciation, capital gains tax and the business structure in general. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Minister of Finance put an end to the uncertainty and confusion for farmers and small business men and take steps immediately to bring in a new budget.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the coming celebration of Christmas which might bypass many retired railway employees, some of whom receive less than $100 a month from the company pension, and in view of the fact that widows receive only one half of the pension increases that are made, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
December 11, 1981

That the House request the Minister of Transport to use his influence with the railway companies to increase railway pensions, index them to protect against inflation, and increase the widows' allowance to 75 per cent immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare told a Liberal fund-raising dinner that Canada's pension system is woefully inadequate for the 2.3 million senior citizens who depend on it and that more than half of all pensioners who are dependent on the guaranteed income supplement can be referred to as being on welfare, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House again calls upon the powers that be on the government side of the House to get their priorities straight, find the moneys to bring Canada's seniors above the poverty level and make the Liberal Party's slogan of "Caring and Sharing" more meaningful than pious statements to Liberal fund-raising dinners.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PETRO-CANADA CHOICE OF LOCATION FOR HEAVY OIL UPGRADER IN SASKATCHEWAN-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, because of the involvement of Petro-Canada in the Saskatchewan heavy oil upgrader for 15 per cent of that operation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources consult with the management of Petro-Canada so that they may make it clear to the people of Canada, the real shareholders of Petro-Canada, their choice for the location of the heavy oil upgrader in Saskatchewan.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Now that it has become crystal clear that the budget is having disastrous effects on low-income working Canadians because of the already high taxes placed on gasoline and heating oil, interest rates, and now the direct and indirect taxes placed on the low-income earners' employee benefits in this budget, was the minister not aware of the difficulties and loss of income these low-income earners were suffering already? Will he not announce major changes in the budget before Christmas in these areas, or will he just be creating a group of low-incomeearning tax return law breakers in this country? That may be the only way by which they will be able to live with some dignity in the coming year.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: No, Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to carry out the hon. member's wish, because the budget has provided for reduced taxes or no tax increases for 12 million taxpayers. It has provided substantial tax relief to low-income families because of changes in the federal tax. Whatever increased taxes are to be collected, they are, by design, to be collected from taxpayers in high-income groups. I wonder why the hon. member would suggest that the budget has not distributed in a fairer way the burden of taxation in the country.


EQUITY OF PROVISIONS
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, high interest rates, taxes on energy, and now these taxes on employee benefits, are a very difficult pill for these people to swallow. Restaurant workers must dig into their already low incomes to pay for their meal privileges. Department store clerks will have to dig into their already low incomes to pay for their purchasing benefits. Farmers and small-business men will have to dig into their pensions when they retire to pay their capital gains taxes, health insurance premiums, life insurance premiums, and I could go on and on. When will the minister explain to low-income Canadians the equity in this budget? Will he do it before Christmas, or wait until some time in the New Year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has raised a whole series of issues. Let me deal with one which has been referred to by the hon. member. This is the third time in the past week an hon. member opposite has stated that it is the intention of the budget to tax employee discounts. That is absolutely untrue, and I wish hon. members would stop ascrib-

December 11, 1981
Oral Questions
ing to the budget difficulties which do not exist. Those statements are false.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: That is an unbelievable answer.


ARMED SERVICES' FLIGHTS
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Has the Minister of National Defence approved or spoken to the Minister of Finance about taxes on servicemen's flights home? These people have been asked by Canadians to protect their freedoms in other countries. Or are the troops going to be singing next year at Christmas, "I'd be home for Christmas but Rompkey taxed my flight"?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I think it is time we stopped speculating about the consequences of the budget and looked instead at the realities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lamontagne:: The hon. member has jumped to a false conclusion about troops moving from Germany to Canada. As far as I am concerned, with respect to people moving on leave or moving on duty there is no question of their being taxed. When the Minister of Finance was formulating the budget one of the principles he kept in mind was equity, and I am sure the minister will see to it that there is equity in this case.


EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS TO MEDICAL AND DENTAL PLANS
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. It concerns the negative impact of the now notorious MacEachen budget on ordinary working Canadians. Is the minister aware that the budgetary provisions which require that employer contributions to medical and dental plans be regarded as taxable benefits will, in essence, reduce the take-home pay of Canadian workers and are yet another tax grab from middle and low-income groups? Is the minister aware of this?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Yes, Madam Speaker, I am.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EMPLOYEE LOANS
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, the question is, what is the minister going to do about it? My supplementary is to the same minister. Another provision which will hurt both the employers and employees is the requirement that employee loans will also have to be regarded as taxable benefits, thus creating an administrative nightmare for the employer and another nickel-and-diming to death of the little guy by the tax department. How can the minister justify such a counterproductive measure? Would he explain that, please?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, as I indicated yesterday to the hon. member's colleague who asked me a similar question, I have made a good note of these representations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF FINANCE MEET CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In recent days he has managed to meet with a number of business groups concerning changes in the budget. He had a call from his friends at Dome Petroleum and agreed to make a certain change. I wonder if he can tell the House why, having met with these other groups, he found it impossible yesterday, although he was here for question period earlier in the day and for a vote last night, to meet with the president of the Canadian Labour Congress and other trade union leaders representing more than two million Canadian workers? Why did the Minister of Finance not assume his responsibility, sit down and meet this very important group of Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am happy to provide that explanation. As I understand it, on Monday of this week the Canadian Labour Congress requested an appointment with the government for yesterday. That is reasonable. However, it seems to me it would have been a lot better if the Canadian Labour Congress had given us some notice. The fact is that at the same time at which the Congress meeting took place with representatives of the government, I had already undertaken to meet with the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen. That meeting had been set and I felt obligated to carry on with it.
If the Congress is eager to carry on a dialogue with the government, it ought to make arrangements that will provide an opportunity to meet with them. May I add that prior to the budget I did have a consultation with the Canadian Labour Congress. It was I who asked for the consultation. I invited them to come and see me. I was quite prepared to hear their views. Therefore I do not think the hon. member has a very good case.


BANKS AND BANKING
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, quite apart from the failure of the minister to meet with them, there is the important question of policy matters which is of interest not only to members of the Canadian Labour Congress but to Canadians. One of my colleagues was on a radio open line show in Alberta this morning, speaking on the question of an excess profits tax for the banks. All kinds of positive indications were received that the majority of Canadians want the
December 11, 1981

excess profits of the banks dealt with now so that that money can be used for housing. That request also comes from the Canadian Labour Congress and, I repeat, from all kinds of groups across the country. I ask the minister, because as he knows we are going to recess next week, is he going to announce an excess profits tax on the banks and, if not, why not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite extraordinary, to say the least. He is talking about an excess profits tax for the banks and asking us to bring in a measure. That very item was before the House of Commons last night and it was defeated. Does the hon. member not know that? He is reflecting on a decision already taken by the House of Commons that it is not appropriate at this time to establish such a tax.
Oral Questions
before the House recesses next Friday, then I will do that. It would be my preference to do it in the House of Commons, or at least to inform the House of Commons.


Mr. Clark:: You will be as cowardly as Mr. Pepin was with VIA Rail.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not undertaking to do anything other than that. If the House is sitting when I make these changes, obviously I will draw these changes to the attention of the House.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
It was not only the members of the government who defeated that resolution. The government was supported by a large number of members of the official opposition who would like some facts before a tax measure is established on the basis of a non-confidence motion moved by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I find his questions getting more incredible every day.
*
* *

John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the people of Canada find the Minister of Finance more and more incredible every day, considering that we had a vote some time ago on the budget in general. Since we had that vote it was the Minister of Finance who indicated that he was prepared to make a change, and we find it surprising that, having voted last night, he could so completely lock his mind in that he could not come to his senses and accept the possibility of an excess profit tax being reasonable. I point out to the minister that if he could change his mind in the past, one hopes that he could also do it in the future.
Since he has indicated there will be some changes in the budget, in spite of recent votes, would the minister tell the House whether he will announce those changes before Parliament recesses at the end of next week, or will he wait until all Members of Parliament have gone home, and then announce changes that he thinks will be quite unacceptable to the people of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I answered that question yesterday when it was asked by an hon. member from Vancouver. I told the hon. member that I was receiving representations from various groups in the country, that I was listening, and that if I found adjustments necessary I would announce them as soon as possible. If it is possible to do that


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, my question was to be addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who was, first of all, sitting with the NDP, who then sat in his seat, and now he is obviously answering a question from one of his angry constituents. May I defer my question until he returns, Madam Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: There he is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Chair will recall in October last year that he introduced, or the Minister of Finance, on his behalf, introduced a very negative National Energy Program that has caused untold damage to all the small Canadian oil companies, the service contractors and the drilling companies. Has the minister sat down and discussed the damage that the lack of interest deductibility will further cause to these small Canadian entrepreneurs, and, if so, what will he do about it?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, last year the government introduced a National Energy Program that has meant a significant increase in Canadian ownership of the Canadian oil and gas industry over the last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: This program has meant a significant restructuring of the industry in favour of Canadians, rather than in favour of the multinationals that my friend and his party have always been so keen to support. It has also meant that we have introduced a piece of legislation called Bill C-48 that finally passed this House yesterday, after one year of filibustering by the opposition, and which will ensure the development of the Canada lands for the benefit of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
13968

December 11, 1981
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: These are some of the things that the National Energy Program has meant, in addition to a fair price for Canadians. Obviously because of the lack of agreement with the oil producing provinces, there have been problems in the last year in the oil and gas industry in western Canada. That I recognized. In September we managed to reach agreements with the oil producing provinces. We have got a good deal for the Canadian oil and gas companies. I am confident that they will take full advantage of all the benefits provided for, under those agreements and the energy program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, that is hogwash.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INTEREST DEDUCTIBILITY PROVISIONS IN BUDGET
Thomas Scott Fennell: I am from Ontario. What has happened to the ripple benefits from the three megaprojects that have been cancelled? Small service contractors, drilling operators and small Canadian oil companies are in disastrous shape. The new budget is putting them further down the hole. Could the minister plead with the Minister of Finance to remove the punitive lack of deductibility of interest with respect to small Canadian oil resource companies?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: How many Uranium Cities will we have?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, this hogwash has been the type of opposition and filibustering we have had from the opposition in the last year as far as energy is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: The three megaprojects have not been cancelled. They have been the subject of negotiation. Next week I will meet with Alberta and the Alsands people, for instance, in order to arrive at an agreement which will ensure that the Alsands megaproject will proceed. Discussions are also taking place with the Cold Lake group in order to ensure that those projects proceed. The government is taking steps to ensure that those projects will be dealt with and that we will reach self-sufficiency in the country in the area of oil during this decade, at a price which will be fair to Canadians, and with a larger Canadian ownership and control of the industry, which that party has been fighting for the last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DIEFENBAKER MUSEUM
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works who is responsible for housing. I am sure the minister is aware of the deep respect and admiration many Canadians have for that very great Canadian, the late Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker. In his will the former Prime Minister left his home in Rockcliffe to the Government of Canada, to be opened to all Canadians as a special and significant museum. Would the minister advise the House whether the government has formally accepted the offer contained in Mr. Diefenbaker's will?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to indicate to the House that the government stands by its offer which was communicated to the executors of the will. The government, acting through the agency of the National Capital Commission, would be pleased to accept title to the property, providing that foundation officials will be responsible for the operation of the property as a museum. The offer still stands. There appears to be some difficulty or some disagreement between the foundation officials and the executors of the will, but the Government of Canada stands behind its offer to receive title and to co-operate with foundation officials in making that objective possible.


TERMS OF WILL
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Will the minister confirm to the House whether the government is prepared to accept the title according to the terms and conditions in the late Mr. Diefenbaker's will? These were spelled out specifically in the will. Certainly the minister must be aware of what was in the will and what Mr. Diefenbaker requested.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I can only repeat my answer. The government stands by its offer to accept title to the property through the offices of the National Capital Commission, which I think is probably the proper agency for dealing with this matter. It was under the condition that the foundation would be responsible for the maintenance of the museum in the future.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who assured the House in the last few weeks, in answer to a question of one of my colleagues, that there would be no change to the Crow rate until a consensus had been reached. Since the provinces of

Manitoba and Saskatchewan, along with most farmers, oppose any change to the rate, what action is he contemplating to discipline the Minister of Agriculture who said in Chatham recently that he wanted to change the Crow rate and thus drastically reduce net farm incomes to Canadian farmers?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems to be making an argument rather than asking a question. The government is still discussing the matter of the Crow rate with the concerned parties, not only the farmers and the dealers but with the governments themselves. There is some difference of opinion among various inhabitants of the west. My ministers are trying to ascertain in what direction they would want to move, as being more beneficial to them.


MINISTER'S VIEWS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In his speech he said that the Crow rate works against the goals that they had set out in the federal agri-food strategy. Would the minister explain to the House what benefits he sees to farmers by doing away with the Crow rate? How does it benefit farmers to reduce net farm incomes to Canadian farmers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, it is the hon. member's right to interpret what I said or what was reported in the newspaper-that is for sure. But it is not government policy to do away with the Crow rate, as the Prime Minister said. We have to have discussion and we have to find out what people are thinking. It was in answer to a question from the floor of the Ontario soya bean growers' meeting. If he wants to quote all the things said at that meeting, there is no time in question period to do it. What we are saying in the agri-food strategy is that we must create those jobs for the raw product which is produced, processed, etc., to ensure that there are jobs for them in western Canada, eastern Canada, or wherever it will be, to improve the over-all agri-food, farming, industrial sector, or the total industry, to make it better for all. This is what we are proposing in the agri-food strategy. We are not proposing in any place-nor did I say it in any manner or form-to do away with the Crow rate like the hon. member is suggesting.


NATIONAL SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
INFORMATION SOUGHT FROM PUBLIC SERVANTS BY MEMBERS OF PARTI QUEBfeCOIS
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. All political parties encourage the seeking of information about other groups and other parties, and all governments, domestic or otherwise, seek information about the activities, motives and intended policies of other governments. But in some cases, here
Oral Questions
in Canada in any event, we now know that the police or the security services have been used in error, or the police have gone too far in their sometimes conscientious endeavours in obtaining political information for their political masters.
My question to the Prime Minister relates to comments made yesterday outside the House, which I cannot believe were made by a Solicitor General without the very fullest briefing with his Prime Minister, relating to activities by members of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec in obtaining information from federal government public servants, and the use of the security service in preventing this from taking place. Because this does not concern foreign governments and international relations are not involved, would the Prime Minister indicate what information was being sought, by whom, and from whom?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I recall a couple of years ago Mr. Parizeau, the minister of finance of the Pequiste government in Quebec, gleefully reporting that he was trying to cull secret information from the Government of Canada through various agents. I remember at the time the opposition thought that was a great lark. That may have been what the Solicitor General was referring to-I do not know. I have not seen or heard the statements he made yesterday.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He is talking about today.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister realizes that the purport of the Solicitor General's statements yesterday had two elements, first, to warn those in Quebec who were seeking the presumably political information to stop and, second, to signal to the Canadian security service to go after them. In view of the history of past activities of the security service, especially in the province of Quebec, in rather extremely delicate circumstances such as this, I wonder whether I could obtain a commitment from the Prime Minister for a full, comprehensive statement, either from the Prime Minister or the Solicitor General before the House rises for Christmas.


Marc Lalonde: That statement has been made.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will make that statement now. Any person, or government of any province which attempts to get confidential information by devious means from the Government of Canada, will be the object of government concern, and certainly it will be the job of the police and of the officials to prevent that from happening.

December 11, 1981
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


INTRODUCTION OF FARM CREDIT CORPORATION LEGISLATION
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On November 5 I asked the minister when the bill spelling out the amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation legislation would be ready for presentation to the House. He told me then that the draft legislation was completed. Can the minister now tell the House whether or not the Department of Justice, the Farm Credit Corporation, and he, as the responsible minister, will have this urgent legislation introduced in the House before the Christmas adjournment so that it can, we hope, receive quick passage, or is someone in the back rooms not treating this legislation with a sense of urgency?
Will the minister also discuss this matter with the government House leader, and through him with the other two House leaders, to make sure that the Farm Credit Corporation legislation does pass before Parliament adjourns for Christmas, so that those farm operations that qualify and are in great need can receive loans at a low rate of interest?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Farm Credit Corporation legislation is being discussed. It has been drafted and I hope it will soon be before the House planning committee, but I doubt if it could be presented before the House adjourns for Christmas.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is recommending that Canola, a rapeseed, should come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. May I ask the minister if that is the policy of the government and, if so, will producers be given an opportunity to express their preference through a plebiscite?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I have read the speech made by the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board in which he indicated very clearly that he was making a suggestion to that effect, in order to help the development of debate on the subject. He did not announce it as a government policy. There is no reflection to that effect in his speech.


REQUEST THAT PLEBISCITE BE HELD
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, could the minister answer the second part of the question, namely, will the producers of Canada be provided the opportunity to express their preference through a producer plebiscite?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not
know, Madam Speaker, although I know that this method was used previously in order to determine a position. I do not know if that method would be used again, but it might.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question would be for the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as government House leader, but in his absence perhaps I can direct it to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is not in the House today; he was not here yesterday, and he was not here the day before. In fact, he has not been in the House for question period practically since Parliament reconvened. Would the Prime Minister explain to the House why the minister for DREE continues to hide from questions from members about his responsibilities?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to accept notice of the question from the hon. member if it had some substance because, under the procedures of the government, today I am the minister designated to receive questions on behalf of the minister for DREE. I can assure the hon. member that the reputation of the minister for DREE is that of one who is receptive and responsive to representations made by all members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, there can be no more substantive question than the responsibility of cabinet ministers to the House of Commons. In light of that, may I again direct my question to the Prime Minister. Why does the minister of DREE continue to hide from legitimate questions about his department, asked in the House of Commons? Will the Prime Minister instruct the minister of DREE to attend question period, at least on a regular basis. We know that he is in Ottawa, so we know that he can be here, but he refrains from attending question period to answer legitimate questions about his department's responsibilities.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, and certainly I personally, have heard the minister of DREE answer many questions-


An hon. Member:: When? Give a date.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and he has made those replies with extreme competence. Indeed, he generally devastates the questioner.
I imagine the hon. member screwed up his courage to ask the question today because the minister happens to be away. The hon. member should ask the question when the minister is
December 11, 1981

here. I do not know why he says the minister is in Ottawa. He is in Africa, representing the Canadian government on a very important mission.
Without knowing the statistics, I would say that the minister responsible for DREE is in the House about as often as the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HOUSING
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for housing, if hon. members across the way will allow us to continue with the session.
At a housing conference held in Toronto on November 21, the minister was asked by the Metro Ontario Housing Tenants Council to speak with the Ontario minister of housing about the "empty nester" evictions policy begun by the Ontario Housing Corporation which is under contract to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The situation is that up to 2,600 more tenants of Ontario Housing are in danger of eviction because their children have started work, are leaving home, have died, or their spouses have died. Of these, 70 per cent-
Oral Questions
pressure to provide, in addition, accommodation to families with children. The policy has not been finalized; it is under review, and I understand that it has been discussed publicly in the forum of the social services committee of the Metropolitan Council and that there has been an opportunity for input from the public at large.


NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RENTAL ACCOMMODATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. In view of the 23 per cent increase in rent in Toronto, will the minister negotiate with the minister of housing for Ontario to begin building more supplemented low-rental housing under the auspices of the Ontario Housing Corporation?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, of course the decision of whether the province takes advantage of Section 40 of the National Housing Act is within the competence of the provincial government which must take that decision. I did have an opportunity of discussing the allocation of modest rental units under the Canada rental supply plan announced by the Minister of Finance in the budget when I spoke with the provincial minister. I also indicated that in addition to the allocation to the province of those units, one third of them could be further rent supplemented in a joint program between the province and the federal government. I understand that the Ontario government is seriously considering taking up those rent supplement plans.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows

that he need not have these long preambles. If he has a question I think that would be more useful.
so)


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is no longer than many others you have not commented upon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: I would say that the questions of the hon. member are usually quite long, but 1 will have a question immediately if he has one.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, my question to the minister is to find out whether at his recent meeting with the Ontario minister of housing he raised the question about the "empty nester" evictions policy, and whether he can tell us if it will be stopped.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The answer is that yes, indeed, I did raise the matter with the minister responsible for housing for the province of Ontario, on Monday of this week. The minister indicated that this matter, being within the jurisdiction of the government of the province of Ontario, is under review. The question of the "empty nesters" in the age group of 50 to 59 is under review. The minister indicated that although he is concerned about the accommodation needs of that group, he is under tremendous


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I would like to know whether the minister and the Government of Canada are intervening in the ridiculous actions taken by the state of Maine to block the free movement of New Brunswick potatoes to U.S. markets through that state. If this is so, can he briefly tell this House where the matter now stands? Is he supporting U.S. federal government action in its attempts to convince the Governor of the state of Maine that what the state is now doing is contrary not only to the U.S. Constitution but to the international free trade agreements as well?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, a regional federal court has made a decision that the injunction which was requested by the United States Department of Agriculture was not in order.
I understand that USDA and CDA and other governmental officials here have been requested to consider taking the

Oral Questions
problem to GATT. I believe that is where it will go because, as the hon. member says, it is contrary to our trading agreement under GATT. This is a situation where a state has passed a law which is a trade restriction type of non-tariff barrier, but nevertheless, it is really a barrier. It is an inspection service where every truckload of potatoes crossing the state border must pay a $200 inspection fee, which makes the cost of transshipping the potatoes into the United States an impossible and exorbitant cost. We believe that the only way to go is through GATT.


Mr. Paproski:: Would you say it's a hot potato?


ORDERS AND DECORATIONS
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in 1980, the Prime Minister announced the intention of the government to establish a medal for long service for Canadian police. As late as December 8, earlier this week, when we were at Government House I spoke to the Director of the Chancellery of Canadian Orders and Decorations, and he had not heard anything about any progress in that matter through the Privy Council Office. Could the Prime Minister advise the House on the status of that decoration, and give some indication of when it might become available for Canadian police forces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do remember the undertaking which I gave in a message to the chiefs of police on the occasion of their anniversary. I indicated that, because of the very important work done by the police forces in this society in keeping a balance between freedom and respect of the law, I would be setting up the presentation of such a medal.
As the hon. member gave me notice before the proceedings of the House began, that he would be raising the subject, I had occasion to inquire. I am told that the placing into effect of that announcement will be early in the New Year, that certain administrative matters still remain to be cleared up, but that the work is well in progress and almost finished.


Walter David Baker: Thank you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thank you.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. The issue concerning the Crowsnest Pass rate has come up this morning.
I would like to ask the minister if he can clear the air. There are obviously two points of view on this whole question.
Can the minister tell the House whether there are contemplated changes to the Crowsnest Pass rate which will change the payout of money to the railways, the farmers, or whatever? If there will be changes, could the minister indicate in what area the government is now looking at changes, and also what form these changes may take? For example, might we see a task force, or a white or blue paper on the whole question of transportation in western Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Order in council.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I wish there were only two points of view on this subject. One of the difficulties is that there are more than two. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture have indicated what is now taking place. I have already answered a question to that effect. Ministers are now discussing among themselves the best approach to the resolution of what is essentially a western transportation problem, a mainline transportation problem.
At the moment, two general approaches, found all over western Canada, are being debated. One is the comprehensive or system approach which would encompass a discussion and resolution of the problem of the Crowsnest Pass rate. The other is the special project approach which would mainly consist of the best possible use of the $1.3 billion that the Minister of Finance has made available for that purpose. Therefore, this discussion is ongoing, and as soon as that is resolved there will be a discussion with interested parties in western Canada, and refinements on different items and points which would constitute a resolution to this question.


DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF POSSIBLE CHANGES
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport who should know, and l believe he does know, that there are basically two groups which are concerned and are against any change in the Crowsnest Pass rate. Those groups are the Farmers Union and the New Democratic Party, both federally and at the provincial level.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: Farm groups in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and virtually all farmers in western Canada, are in favour of a change of some sort.


An hon. Member:: Not so.


Jack Burnett Murta: Will changes be made to the Crowsnest Pass rate in 1982?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am once again very grateful to the hon. member for Lisgar for indicating that he is a disciple or a proponent of a move on the subject. I think that the NDP takes a position
December 11, 1981

with regard to this subject, and a few others, which is rather reactionary, not to say more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: However, there are indications that there might be movement there, too, because instead of referring to "the" statutory rate, some of them are referring to "a" statutory rate which, if we look very closely, would indicate that they might not be entirely hopeless.


WESTERN DEVELOPMENT FUND
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. There has been considerable confusion on the part of the government with respect to the origin of the payment of $81 million to farmers as a result of losses sustained by the implementation of the Soviet grain embargo. The officials of the minister's department have now indicated that this has been taken from the Western Development Fund, and the Minister of Agriculture says it is from his department.
I wonder whether the Minister of Finance, having now had an opportunity to look into this matter, could report to the House as to whether or not there is a Western Development Fund, and whether the $81 million comes from that fund.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, first of all, there is a Western Development Fund.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You found it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will check with regard to the specific point raised by the hon. member concerning the source of that particular compensation program.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The minister was asked the very same question two weeks ago. I imagine we will get the answer by about 1986.


USE OF MONEYS FOR RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In terms of the intentions of the government with respect to the so-called Western Development Fund, if it does in fact exist, $1.3 billion has been dedicated toward the upgrading of western grain transportation. One of the options being put forward by the minister is that that money be used to close the gap between the compensatory rate and the actual cost to the railways. Is the government now in a position to say whether that is its intention? There is very great concern in
Committees of the House
western Canada with respect to the Crow rate. The people of Saskatchewan do not want anyone fooling around with the Crow rate.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this is part of the discussion which is now ongoing. However, without breaking cabinet solidarity, I think I can say, glancing at the Prime Minister, that this $1.3 billion will go to western railway transportation. There has been a discussion on that matter.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: He is looking at you, too.


An hon. Member:: Doubletrack.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It seems that there is some worry in western Canada concerning other transportation issues. I was able to tell the hon. member that we could take care of air transportation requirements, for example, with the budget of the Department of Transport.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is a national responsibility.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Therefore, that is the situation. The $1.3 billion will go to the western railway mainline transportation system.
I would like to observe that this is only part of what the federal government does by way of helping western transportation and the grain industry, in particular, because over a five-year period the $1.3 billion will be on top of $2.2 billion which is already in the Department of Transport estimates for that purpose. The importance of the subject of ensuring western Canada of the best railway transportation system the world has ever seen is in the mainstream of the preoccupations of this government.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Madam Speaker:: I would like to make a statement on the new procedures concerning the printing of committee reports.
In order to make the Votes and Proceedings of the House more readable and to reduce the current substantial expenses of printing committee reports in as many as three or four separate formats, it has been decided in consultation with the Commissioners of Internal Economy and the House leaders to implement the following procedures:
That the text of committee reports on subject matters be printed only in a regular committee issue and not appear in a special edition or in the Votes and Proceedings',
that such reports when tabled in the House of Commons be assigned a sessional paper number which will be duly recorded in the Votes and Proceedings',

December 11, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Lewis
that reports on bills and estimates continue to appear both in the regular committees' issues and in the Votes and Proceedings-,
that the committees submitting reports of substantial length or on subject matters may choose to have distinctive covers attached to the regular committee issue.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the one hundred and fifty-fifth report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) on Thursday, December 10, 1981, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I want to pursue the question of privilege which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) flagged last Wednesday. It has to do, of course, with the right of the House and the members of the House to accurate answers from members of the ministry.
The nineteenth edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, at pages 141 and 142, shows very clearly that misleading the House of Commons is considered a very serious contempt of that institution, whether it is done by false documents, conspiracy to deceive or by a deliberately misleading statement. Two paragraphs in particular of that citation are of interest. The first at page 141 sets forth as follows:
It has already been seen that the giving of false evidence, prevarication or suppression of the truth by witnesses while under examination before either House or before committees of either House is punished as a contempt; and that persons who present false, forged or fabricated documents to either House or to committees of either House are guilty of a breach of privilege. Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
The second paragraph on page 142 reads as follows:
The House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.
In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave contempt.
That citation referred to the Profumo case with which the Chair is very familiar.
These paragraphs show very clearly in my submission, Madam Speaker, that the House has always considered that it
has the right to hear the truth, and any attempt to mislead the House is considered as a contempt and treated as such.
Our own precedents show that deliberately misleading the House can be done indirectly with a member or a minister being, in a sense, an agent of misrepresentation, but not himself culpable in contempt. That particular case was raised by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), who was then the member for Northumberland-Dur-ham, in 1978 and it is very critical here to your consideration, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Speaker Jerome said on that occasion, which involved the drafting of a deliberately misleading reply to a letter from the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland:
The complaint which is the subject matter of the question of privilege is not directly-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is arguing the case, and I do not know exactly which case. All of these references to precedents and to Erskine May may be invoked once the hon. member has exposed to the House where he feels there is a basis for a question of privilege. I would like to hear that. Of course, all these citations from Erskine May, to the effect that if someone has deliberately misled the House, or admitted that he has contradicted himself, he may be in contempt of this House, and of course that is true, relate to a description of what contempt of the House really is. But at this particular point this is not the information I seek. I would like the hon. member to tell me exactly where he feels he has a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, I undertake to do that, Madam Speaker. In developing my argument I want to present it to you in the form in which I have prepared it, but I can promise you that that will develop as I proceed.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The argument may not be developed before the case is exposed. If the Speaker should find a prima facie case of privilege then, of course, members are invited to develop their arguments. But at this particular point-


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Madam Speaker:: At this particular point, the members should present the Chair with the matter and with facts to substantiate the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Yes, of course, that is what we have to do at this particular point.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is today's ruling.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have been raising questions such as this for 24 years in this place, and I have been developing them as I am developing this one now. In the light of my undertaking to link my argument with facts, surely the Chair will hear me out in the manner in which I have developed this argument.
December 11, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I have given the Chair and other members, for the benefit of the minister who is interfering by his interjections, my personal undertaking as a member to present the Chair with those facts which have been requested of me by the Chair. I will do that, but I wish to do it in my own style and in the manner in which I have been presenting questions of this nature for 24 years, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I was just reminding him of the procedures which we have followed in the House with regard to questions of privilege. The citations from Erskine May, even the lengthy ones that the hon. member is making, are the obvious; we all know that Erskine May has so described a question of privilege. What we really need to know is what this particular privilege is all about. I know the hon. member has his own style, but I would appreciate if he would describe the question of privilege so I can come to a conclusion.


Erik Nielsen: I undertake with the Chair absolutely to do that, Madam Speaker. With respect to the lengthy citations from May to which the Chair has referred, one was nine lines and the other was three.
Mr. Speaker Jerome said on the occasion to which I referred:
That the complaint which is-


Paul James Cosgrove: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: There is no point of order on a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, there may be a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: There is no point of order on a question of privilege.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege.


Charles Joseph Clark: What rules are those?


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Paul James Cosgrove: I have listened to the-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I have listened to you-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Just submit your resignation and go.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. minister said he wanted to rise on a point of order, and subsequently he said he was rising on a point of privilege. I can only hear-


An hon. Member:: Sit down, Paul.
Privilege-Mr. Lewis


Madam Speaker:: If the hon. minister would please resume his seat.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: Would the hon. minister please resume his seat until I have finished explaining. As I was saying, the hon. minister said he was rising on a point of order, which I could hear in the course of a question of privilege. He subsequently mentioned that he was rising on a question of privilege. I do have to remind the hon. minister that I cannot entertain two questions of privilege at the same time. I may entertain a point of order in the course of the exploration of a question of privilege but not another question of privilege. If the hon. minister has a further question of privilege, I could hear him after I have heard the hon. member for Yukon.


Paul James Cosgrove: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I have listened on two occasions today to the Chair ruling on procedures of the House. My point of order is that notwithstanding those two rulings, the member seeking the floor on a question of privilege is continuing to proceed with argument before fact. Obviously, Madam Speaker, I am a minister and the person who is the subject of those representations. My point of order is that the Chair and the House ought to follow its procedures. Otherwise, hon. members may find their privileges interfered with and I would have to rise on a question of privilege subsequently.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: I had not ruled, I was cautioning the hon. member for Yukon about the usual manner in which we try to hear questions of privilege and to contain members who would like to argue the case before the question is exposed. That was the purport of my caution to the hon. member for Yukon.
I will now hear the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: So as to get on with the matter, Madam Speaker, I will set aside the linkage which 1 intend to submit to the Chair but the argument and the presentation is now disrupted. I presented May's, I will set aside the argument with respect to our own precedents and I will now lay the facts out for the Chair and, I hope, for the minister.
It is my submission, Madam Speaker, that in the case at hand involving the minister responsible for housing, the House has clearly been misled. The question that it outstanding is, by whom?
Now, had I been allowed to present the precedent in our Canadian House, that question would be more relevant, but I will have to come back to it when I am through giving my version of the facts. I will suggest that both possible answers to the question "By whom?" lead us irrevocably to the conclusion that a contempt has occurred, thereby justifying an investigation by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
According to the citation from May and the citations which I have yet to make, the issue of a possible leak was first raised

December 11, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Lewis
in the House on Tuesday, November 17, as reported in Hansard at page 12827.	.
When asked about this suspiciously early appearance of budget advertisements, the minister said this:
-I learned generally of the provisions of the budget as they pertain to housing at a briefing of the cabinet by the Minister of Finance on Thursday afternoon. I learned specifically and saw the budget documents a few minutes before they were presented by the Minister of Finance in the House. My officials worked from five o'clock in the afternoon, through the evening, and early the next morning, and produced for my inspection that document-
Referring to the advertisement.
-which had been worked upon. It was authorized at noon on November 13 as a result of a meeting of the communications cabinet of the Government of Canada, as I say on Friday, November 13.
The minister clearly denied any early knowledge or early communication to anyone not properly involved in the budget process. In fact, he said that neither he nor his officials knew what was in the budget.
Not surprisingly, Madam Speaker, the issue was raised again by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) on Wednesday, November 18, when the minister had obviously had a chance to talk to his officials and make sure that he was giving the story not only as he knew it but as they knew it. The minister added to his story but did not change any material particular. At page 12886 of Hansard, the minister said:
-I have had the opportunity since responding to the questions yesterday afternoon to speak to officials on this matter. I would confirm that the story reported in The Globe and Mail today, on page 8, does consist of the facts as I understand them. The facts are correct that, first, no publication of any material affecting housing in the budget was printed until after the budget, that is, November 13.
Said the minister:
I also confirm that no material pertaining to that advertisement was in the hands of the firm to which the hon. gentleman has just referred. Indeed, their work for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was to obtain space, which they did.
I would add, finally, that after the budget was delivered in this House, representatives of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation released an advertisement, which was then taken to the newspapers after the budget was delivered-
The minister, therefore, has given a statement to the House before and after consultation with his officials that no one outside the normal and accepted process had access to budget material. On occasion, the minister even implied that it was just dumb luck that the final advertisement had the exact text of the budgetary proposal.
The question was again pursued on Tuesday, December 3, when the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville had investigated further. In response to that question the minister said, as reported at page 13683:
-the brief answer is that no person was aware who was not authorized and under normal budgetary security-all employees or civil servants in the employ or control of the federal government, no person beyond those was aware or had in their possession the particulars of the ad-
The hon. member then asked a supplementary question and even repeated the reference to Studio S & B which was mentioned by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville. The minister repeated his story and again I quote from page 13684:
-I will stand by my previous answer today and on other occasions in this House. I would say to the hon. gentleman that the employee he is referring to, Mr. Crombie, was in a lockup prior to the budget and he was there until the normal time when the media and all authorized people in that lockup were released.
The next day, Madam Speaker, a new truth appeared and the story changed. The minister now said, as I quote from page 13728 of Hansard:
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials had charge of the security of this document until such time as it was delivered to the newspapers after the speech. They were assisted by some employees of the firm of S & B in Montreal.
They were assisted by typesetters who assisted in setting up the document. It was prepared by CMHC in anticipation that the recommendations to the Minister of Finance by me would be accepted and would be in the budget as announced. When that was confirmed, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation authorized the release of those documents which were in sealed envelopes-
Madam Speaker, the House clearly had been misled and upon reflecting on how that occurred, the House has two clear and unavoidable alternatives. They are, either the minister deliberately misled the House and finally gave in and told the truth when he had no alternative but to do so, and in doing so admitted that his earlier statements were false, or the minister's officials misled the minister, causing him to mislead the House and those officials did not give up and tell him the truth until they had no choice.
The first alternative is a contempt under the Profumo citation, which is already submitted and is on the record, and the second is a contempt which is a prima facie case of privilege under the specific terms of the ruling to which I might now refer, now that this degree of fact is before the Chair.
The ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome on the case of the second alternative, the one that was raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, as his constituency was then called, was:
The complaint which is the subject matter of the question of privilege is not directly a complaint about the minister. Indeed, it is founded on the fact that it is one of the minister's officials who has calculated to contrive this deliberate deception of the House. In fact I have indicated some concern about the fact that this may perhaps be looked upon as a new departure in our practice-that we are going around the minister to get directly at the official by way of this question of privilege. Even if that is so, I have come to the conclusion that it is not a procedural basis upon which I can intervene. Once again, it is a matter to which the House can address itself in debate, and in amendment if necessary, or in a vote-
On that occasion Mr. Speaker Jerome went on to say:
That leaves us with the complaint of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham respecting the testimony of former commissioner Higgitt-and I assume there is no further argument to be addressed to this matter at this time- to the circumstances in which the Solicitor General's letter dated September 4, 1973, was drafted. Does that lead us to the conclusion that, by virtue of an act or ommission, the House, or a member, has directly or indirectly been impeded in the performance of its functions or his duty, or that there has been a tendency to produce such result? If I so find, then I really have no choice but to find, prima facie, that a contempt has been committed.
The Speaker then quoted from the commissioner's testimony that letters were not drafted "on precise statements of fact". Mr. Speaker Jerome concluded in this fashion:
December 11, 1981

I can interpret that testimony in no other way than meaning that a deliberate attempt was made to obstruct the member in the performance of his duties, and consequently, to obstruct the House itself.
Even beyond the precedents and the complex law of privilege, I cannot conceive that there is any one of us who would accept the argument that this House of Commons has no recourse in the face of such an attempt to obstruct by offering admittedly misleading information.
This citation has two key points. First, the House does have a right not to be deliberately misled and, second, the ruling established that a contempt has occurred if an official misleads a minister and causes him to mislead the House. That was the argument I wanted up front to support the two alternatives I put to the Chair. I submit at this stage that the Chair now sees the logic of that form of presentation.
In conclusion, I suggest that since a reference to a committee is required either way-the Chair can adopt either option-the House should be allowed to make a decision on a reference, and it can only be allowed to do that, of course, if the Chair finds that prima facie there is a case of privilege. I hope no one in the House will suggest that, because we are not sure which of the citations applies, neither should, because such a result would be rather absurd. A contempt has unquestionably, in my submission, been committed according to both logic and precedent in both instances.
If you find that there is a prima facie question of privilege, this is the form of motion I would move:
That this House, having been misled by the answers of the minister responsible for housing, either directly by the misinformation admittedly supplied to the House by the minister responsible for housing, or by officials of the minister, who in misleading the minister misled the House, declares that a contempt of this House has occurred, and refers the question to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for investigation and report.
Finally, I strongly suggest, in view of the very serious nature of this matter in terms of the consequences your ruling on it will have on this particular privilege of the House and its members, that you follow the very excellent course of your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Jerome, when he had under consideration the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, as he then was, take the matter under consideration until you have very carefully reviewed the precedents I have cited and provide us with a ruling after you have had that full opportunity to give this matter the careful review and consideration it deserves, having regard to the very serious downstream consequences it could have on the privileges of all of us and of this institution.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, when I rose earlier on a point of order respecting this issue I said I felt that the Chair had asked that facts be presented before the House before the Chair entertained consideration of the logic or the precedents which would guide the Chair in this matter. I rise now to make a contribution to the question raised by the House leader of the opposition and to direct just a few comments to the facts.
I draw to the attention of the Chair that in the two fairly lengthy excerpts taken from Hansard, reference was made to a firm which had assisted Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials in the typesetting for an ad. There was a very
Privilege-Mr. Lewis
clear implication that the references in each of those quotations given to your Honour were one and the same. However, a careful look at the facts and at Hansard will show that the first reference was to a firm which indeed was shown not to have had any dealings at all, with the exception of taking space. I only bring this to Your Honour's attention to point out the difficulty the Chair must face in trying to sort through facts and the danger of assuming that these facts come together, which might prompt the Chair to move on to consideration of precedent or argument.
Finally, I would like to say to Your Honour, to hon. members opposite and hon. members on this side that, in answer to a question yesterday dealing with budget secrecy, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) said that it is very difficult to prepare a budget, which is a complicated document, in this day and age. For example, the Canada mortgage renewal program, which was the subject of the ad which is at issue here, involves certain implications respecting financial institutions and provincial governments and their plans. Your Honour has heard discussion about similar legislation in one of the provinces. It is not easy to prepare a plan in isolation.
For that reason when I have the opportunity-and it will be shortly-to introduce the legislation necessary to implement the Canada mortgage renewal plan, I will have the opportunity to tell the House about the steps which were required and are necessary for the government to implement this plan in order to demonstrate to the House the difficulty of maintaining what we know as our tradition of budget secrecy while also meeting the modern requirement of communicating information to the public about such a plan so that all those involved, such as financial institutions, the public and other goverments, are quickly apprised of government action.


Erik Nielsen: That is not the issue.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. A charge of contempt is indeed a very serious matter. I must say to the House leader of the official opposition that two matters strike me. Though his argument was complicated, it certainly was very compelling. The information he placed before your Honour will undoubtedly take time to digest. I am therefore impressed that he would ask that you should consider it over the weekend at least before coming to any decision.
I too have had some reservations about the contradictions which have appeared in Hansard and, in fact, raised them on another occasion when this matter was before the House. Although the minister responsible for housing offers an explanation and although his explanation may tug at one's heart strings, I suggest it does not explain away the contradiction.
I eagerly await Your Honour's ruling and hope there might be an opportunity, having being given some time to review the representation made by the House leader for the official opposition, for some further input before that ruling is given to the House.

December 11, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Lewis


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I will be quite brief. In response to the minister's intervention, I would say that what the minister suggested was totally irrelevant to the issue that is before the Chair at the present time. The issue is not whether it is inconvenient or difficult for the minister to maintain a balance between consultation with industry and the question of the need for budget secrecy. The issue which the Chair is asked to adjudicate upon is whether the House was misled and whether such misleading of the House constitutes a breach of the privileges of Members of Parliament.
I want to underline two very relevant portions from Hansard which make it very clear to me that the House was given false information. I bring first to your attention page 12827 of Hansard of November 17, 1981, where the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) said the following:
Madam Speaker, I learned generally of the provisions of the budget as they pertain to housing at a briefing of the cabinet by the Minister of Finance on Thursday afternoon. I learned specifically and saw the budget documents a few minutes before they were presented by the Minister of Finance in the House. My officials worked from five o'clock in the afternoon, through the evening, and early the next morning, and produced for my inspection that document which had been worked upon. It was authorized at noon on November 13 as a result of a meeting of the communications cabinet of the Government of Canada, as I say on Friday, November 13.
The document that was referred to when the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) put the question to the minister was that ad which appeared over the minister's signature and which was placed by CMHC.
The minister has since conceded to the House that the truth was that the ad was prepared well in advance and that indeed it was distributed to various distribution points in Canada prior to the time that was mentioned by the minister in the House or his officials working over the document from five o'clock in the afternoon, into the evening until early the next morning. In fact, the advertisement had been prepared well in advance. The information had been communicated to the officials of Studio S & B some days in advance and very clearly the statement made by the minister at page 12827 simply does not bear any relationship to the facts.
Second, when the minister was questioned by various members in the House, he tried to give some indication as to when he was first informed and when his officials were first informed. At page 12834 of Hansard, the minister was asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) about the time the information was conveyed to various officials. He said the following:
Madam Speaker, the hon. member indicated as he rose to ask the question that he would be repeating a question. I will repeat my answer. I was not aware of the provisions in the budget pertaining to housing until the Minister of Finance released in this House, or almost simultaneous with that.


An hon. Member:: You should have been.


Paul James Cosgrove: Nor was the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation knowledgeable as to what was in the budget, nor were they authorized to release or request publication of any advertisement that had to deal with the budget prior to that time.
What we have now learned is that in fact officials from CMHC had had confirmation that these provisions would be in the budget. They asked that the ads be prepared. The ads were indeed prepared and sent to various distribution points in the country for distribution once the budget was brought down.
Those ads were sent out. They were prepared on the basis of this information prior to the budget being brought down. That is why the Chair must look very carefully at the statements that were made on the record by the minister. Any sensible reading of the statements that were made simply leave us in a situation where it is impossible to reconcile what the minister said with the facts which we all know to be true at this time, and the facts which were conceded by the minister at a later date and were conceded, incidentally, by his officials.
Mr. Crombie himself has in fact confirmed publicly, and other officials from CMHC have, that those ads were worked upon in advance and that the information was prepared in advance and distributed in advance. It left the control of the officers of the government later in the evening once the budget was brought down, but the ads had been prepared and sent to various distribution points in the country prior to the release of the budget.
It is impossible to reconcile what the minister says with the truth and to find that in fact he was reporting on a factual basis to the House. Consequently that is the issue which the Chair is being asked to rule on; it is not the issue of whether or not it was difficult for the minister to balance budget secrecy with the need for consultation with private industry, but the question of whether or not the information given by the minister to the House was truthful and factual and whether on the face of it there is sufficient evidence to merit study by a committee.


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the arguments made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) are almost entirely based on the item found in Erskine May, nineteenth edition, page 142 where it refers to the misconduct of members or officers of either House as such deliberately misleading the House. It states:
The House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.
Prior to the Profumo case, I do not believe that there had been a reference to such a matter as constituting what might be analogous to a question of privilege, as whether a contempt is the same as a question of privilege, is arguable. I do not believe that was in there prior to that.
I do not think the situation we are talking about here has anything to do with the type of facts that were found in the Profumo case. In the Profumo case, a minister stood in the House and admitted to the House that he had lied. If we look at the citations we have in Canada as to whether this constitutes a question of privilege, the clearest point is found on page 12 of Beauchesne, Section 19(1), and I quote:
December 11, 1981

A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegation of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
This is really what we have here, a dispute between members as to the allegation of facts. In the opinion of some people there are contradictory statements. That is a dispute. We have not had a minister stand up and say that he has deliberately misled the House. I do not think there is any suggestion of that.
When the matter was first raised by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) the other day, he invited the Chair to break new ground and to extend the bounds of parliamentary privilege. I refer Your Honour to page 40 of the fourth edition of Bourinot where it is stated:
Each house, however, exercises and vindicates its own privileges independently of the other. At the same time it has been established by the highest authorities that although either house may expound the law of Parliament and vindicate its own privileges, it is agreed that no new privilege can be created.
Your Honour has been invited to create a new ground of privilege. It is suggested that somehow the area that really is, in my view, debate, a dispute over what the facts are, cannot be drawn into the ambit of the one reference in Erskine May which talks about deliberately misleading the House. This matter was covered very well by Speaker Michener in a ruling which appears in the Journals of the House of Commons of June 17, 1959, and was again referred to on October 30, 1964. I quote the words of Speaker Michener:
In my view, simple justice requires that no honourable Member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the House or a Committee until he has been charged with an offence.
What is an offence? Are contradictory statements an offence? It has been alleged that the statements are contradictory. In my opinion, that is a matter of dispute. Even if it was agreed, and it is not, that there had been contradictory statements, that does not constitute an offence. We do not have an offence. I do not think we have a charge. The Speaker on the same occasion, and this is at page 11268, repeated:
Once more there is nothing to prevent the hon. member from bringing a charge, properly drafted.
I would also refer the Chair to Hansard of October 30, 1964, at page 9595. I believe this was a statement made by Speaker Macnaughton. He stated:
It is undoubtedly a very serious thing to attack the conduct of any member of the House of Commons, and in that respect a specific charge should always be made, not a general charge. I am confirmed in this opinion by an excellent ruling ... given by Mr. Speaker Michener on June 19, 1959-
That is the ruling I have just referred to.
The other day when the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) wanted to reserve the right of raising this matter as a question of privilege, he referred to an incident when Mr. Pearson was Prime Minister. I looked up what l believed was the ruling to which the hon. member referred. In that ruling the words of Speaker Michener that I have just cited were reiterated.
Journals of the House of Commons for December 17, 1964, at page 1012, gives the ruling as follows:
Privilege-Mr. Lewis
Here we are dealing with a misstatement, not a question of privilege. There must be a real accusation made against-in this case-the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, and there must be something in the charge which shows the misstatement, if it was a misstatement, was made with intent, with purpose. There is no specific charge and in view of the ruling of Speaker Michener and of what I have said, in my opinion there is not a prima facie case and therefore no question of privilege.
The one precedent that the hon. member for Yukon raised the other day, we have not heard too much about today, and after having an opportunity to read it, I understand why we did not hear too much about it.
I should also like to refer to some comments made by the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. This is found on page 4825 of Hansard of June 17, 1959. Approximately two weeks ago we were having a dispute about whether or not a budget leak had occurred. There were certain innuendoes made that the minister had been responsible for a budget leak. At that time I referred to the clear precedent, tradition and custom that follows when an hon. member makes a charge of another hon. member, and that is that he basically puts his seat on the line. Mr. Diefenbaker raised this point in 1959 and referred to that 1924 case. He went into it in great detail. In referring to the action that was taken by Mr. Porter, who made the charge at that time, Mr. Diefenbaker said at page 4826 of Hansard of June 17, 1959:
He went into detail and finally moved the motion, which is found at page 2405. He took the course-not the course of innuendo, insinuation and inference-that members have taken in every generation in this parliament. He made a charge, and this is the motion he made:
Then he read the charge. Reference was also made to statements made by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, found on page 4826 of Hansard of June 17, 1959. Mr. Meighen said:
On this occasion the proper course undoubtedly has been pursued by the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter). He has made allegations of conduct against a minister of the Crown, conduct inconsistent with the traditions and honour of parliament, conduct designated as improper in every case where similar questions have arisen in this or in the British house. He has taken the full responsibility, and in a speech temperate in tone and very fair in every respect has laid his charges and made his motion.
The motion is the right motion. The privileges and elections committee historically is the committee which always deals with any contested questions affecting the privileges of parliament. There has never been a case in our history where, a charge being formally laid, the full responsibility being taken and a reference to this committee asked for, such a request or such a resolution has been negatived.
I should like to repeat the phrase "the full responsibility being taken". I think there is only one conclusion that one can draw from that, and that is that if a member makes a charge, he is putting his seat on the line.


An hon. Member:: That is silly.


David P. Smith: I do not happen to think that that is silly at all. I think it is a tradition that we can substantiate by statements made by two former leaders of the Conservative Party, Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Meighen.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Obviously the hon. member does not have much confidence in his charges.

December 11, 1981
Attire of Members


David P. Smith: I think what we have here is a witch-hunt and a bit of a fishing expendition, Madam Speaker. You have been invited to break new ground in terms of what constitutes privilege. I do not believe that is something that you are in a position to do. I think that the precedent found in Erskine May that related to the Profumo case in the British House has no application here whatsoever. We are dealing with people's reputations and with people's careers. I do not think one should tamper with and cloud those reputations and careers lightly. I think one has to put or shut up. I hope that hon. members opposite will either do that or drop this issue.


Madam Speaker:: I believe it is my duty at this time, considering the concern of the House on this particular question and the various arguments that have been brought forward, to take the matter under consideration.


ATTIRE OF MEMBERS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege, if this is the time. It is in a little more light-hearted vein, I might say. Very briefly, at page 13920 of Hansard of December 10, 1981, it was brought to my attention that the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) said: "This may be a small and picayune point", something for which the hon. member is famous. He brought to the Chair's attention that I was present in the House, he said, "without the usual jacket and tie".
I should point out that I did have the usual jacket on, but not a tie. It was my understanding, Madam Speaker, that after a previous incident of this nature involving the hon. member from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), that it was indeed possible in the House to wear a turtleneck.


Erik Nielsen: No.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I notice that the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) has her tie on today and I congratulate the hon. member. I have also worn mine for the occasion, but perhaps tomorrow the hon. member might not be wearing her tie. I am not quite sure, Madam Speaker, whether it is possible to appear in the House, when one is not asking a question or seeking to be recognized, without wearing a tie.
To be perfectly rational, in 1981 it seems to me, if one is dressed in a perfectly fine turtleneck and a good jacket, that one should be able to appear in the House. It seems to me that the procedure is archaic and backward and I cannot find it written anywhere. However, I will, of course, take my direction from the Chair. I should like to have the matter clarified.


Madam Speaker:: Yesterday I did clarify the matter, in the absence of the hon. member. No, the rule or the custom has not changed, despite several attempts, I think, by some hon. members, and even the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), who had worn a tie, I
believe, over his turtleneck. The custom has not changed. In order to come into the House, et a plus forte raison, to be recognized on the floor of the House, members are required to wear jackets, shirts and ties. Until further notice, that is the decorum that I will try to preserve.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member not enlightened by what I have just said?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I take it, Madam Speaker, that excludes female members?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Naturally the proper attire for a female member is not the same as the proper attire for male members. It is quite obvious.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of presenting the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and I wish to thank the leaders of the House for their usual courtesy in agreeing that today, with unanimous consent of the House, I may adopt the report when, Madam Speaker, you call the motions.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.].


PETITION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to lay upon the Table a petition signed by some 270 home owners in Scarborough, in the constituency of the minister responsible for housing which I visited the other night. They indicated that due to their
December 11, 1981

inability to get any action from their member of Parliament on matters relating to housing, they would ask me to act in his stead and represent their interests in the House of Commons. Consequently, I am pleased to lay upon the Table a petition respecting interest rates signed by 270 residents of the city of Scarborough in the province of Ontario.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE
Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I have the unanimous approval of House leaders-and again I thank them for their courtesy-to move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin):
That the fifth report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, presented earlier this day, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin):
That the subcommittee on import policy of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and the three members of the subcommittee, accompanied by the necessary staff, be empowered to adjourn from place to place or travel inside and outside Canada, provided that such travel take place before February 15, 1982 and provided that the estimated expenses for such travel and the locations to be visited are defined in advance and that the subcommittee be empowered to retain the necessary expert staff to assist in the preparation of its report.
I have been advised that this has been agreed to by all parties.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that this motion be presented to the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,783 and 3,109.


CANAPOST INCORPORATED
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government aware that Canapost Incorporated, 350 Sparks Street, Ottawa, is bidding on a contract in Saudi Arabia to automate the post office in that country?
2.	(a) To the knowledge of the government, did the bid submitted by the company contain a letter written by Mr. James Corkery, deputy postmaster general, giving references for the company and the consortium of companies involved with it (b) did Mr. Corkery promise in the letter that, if the contract were given to the company the Post Office Department would lend special assistance?
3.	(a) Who authorized Mr. Corkery's letter on behalf of one specific bidder and what was the name and job designation of the highest ranking individual involved (b) is it government policy to assist one bidder against another in obtaining foreign contracts and, if so, on what date and for what reason was the policy established?
4.	Did Mr. Corkery act on his own initiative and, if so (a) will the government investigate the matter to determine if his actions are considered ethical (b) has the government already investigated the matter and, if so, what were the results of the investigation?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Yes.
2.	Mr. Corkery's letter did not support any particular bid. It only indicated Canada Post's willingness to work closely with Canapost Incorporated and contribute its experience and manpower in specific areas for the Postal Administration of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Canapost Incorporated is a consortium of five individual manufacturing companies.
3.	(a) The letter did not refer to any specific bidder, only to an invitation of Saudi Arabia PTT to the members of Canapost Incorporated to tender on their projects for mechanization program.
(b) No. See parts 2, 3(a) and 4 of this reply.
4.	Yes. Following a request from Canapost Incorporated and in accordance with Canada Post policy to support the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in their efforts to assist Canadian companies in securing export orders against aggressive competition from foreign countries, (a) and (b) This is an established government policy; therefore, no investigation is considered necessary.


ACQUISITION OF SHARES BY CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORP.
Mr. Clarke: 1. DuVing the period 1970-80 did the Cape Breton Development Corporation acquire shares or other ownership interest in any other corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and, if so, what was the (a) name of the corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and any

December 11, 1981
Order Paper Questions
subsidiaries thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d) book value of the acquisition?
2. Does the Cape Breton Development Corporation have a plan to change the present portion of ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so, what is the plan?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I am informed by the Cape Breton Development Corporation as follows:
1. During the period 1970-80 the Cape Breton Development Corporation acquired shares in limited liability companies listed below.
	(b) Per cent of	(c) Cost of Shares
(a) Name	Ownership	PurchasesReeves Modular Homes	33.3	$120,000Margaree Window & Door	25	125C.B. Woolen Mills	53.3	6,400Stott Timber Ltd.	49	2,450Cabotcraft Limited	60	60Whale Cove Summer Village	100	240,000-preferred shares Whale Cove Summer Village	-	-common shares	62.5	25,000Dundee Estates Ltd.	100	185,000Marine Farming	100	5,000C.B. Vegetable Co.	20	20C.B. Lamb Ltd.	100	52,400C.B. Welsh Black	50	4C.B. Eels Ltd.	33	7,500
(d) In all cases the corporation was involved from the incorporation stage of the business and the book value of the acquisition equals the cost of the shares acquired. The preferred shares in whole have since been converted to long-term debt.
2. While some of these businesses have ceased to operate, there are no plans to change our shareholding in them.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 2,563 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


FUNDING OF RESEARCH BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Neil: What number of institutes or organizations that do research and carry out other related activities receive funds from the government, through departments or organizations such as the International Development Research Centre and the Canadian International Development Agency, and, in each case (a) what is the name of the organization (b) what is the amount for the current year (c) what was the amount for each of the previous five years?
Return tabled.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary for the second time question No. 2,644 which stands in my name and was put on the Order Paper on June 18. As the parliamentary secretary will remember, I asked at that time prior to the Royal Wedding whether or not the Government of Canada would be issuing a stamp commemorating the Royal Wedding. I pointed out some weeks ago that it appears the firstborn of the Prince of Wales will arrive before the answer. Could the parliamentary secretary indicate when we will have the answer, or is this simply a contest between the stork and the post office, with the post office losing?


Erik Nielsen: Put your money on the stork.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the answer is soon.


Henry Perrin Beatty: In nine months.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State) moved: that Bill S-23, to incorporate the Jules and Paul-Emile Leger Foundation, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am happy to introduce for second reading Bill S-23, the purpose of which is to incorporate the Jules and Paul-Emile Leger Foundation. As Madam Speaker will know, this bill was passed by the Senate on July 9, 1981. It was introduced for first reading in the House by my colleague, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), on July 14.
The bill will create a private corporation, a foundation, to act in the many areas of philanthropy which were dear to the hearts of Jules Leger and which continue to be dear to the heart of Cardinal Paul-Emile Leger. One main object of the foundation is to relieve sickness and hunger and to provide assistance to all in need, including orphans, lepers, the aged, the handicapped and the ill-treated. The foundation may carry on its activities throughout Canada and in any jurisdiction outside Canada, to the extent that the laws of such jurisdictions permit.
The incorporation of this foundation by a specific act of Parliament rather than through letters patent under the
December 11, 1981

The incorporation of this foundation by a specific act of Parliament rather than through letters patent under the Canada Corporations Act is a testament to the important work which the Legers have performed and the desire of the government to recognize that valuable contribution through this bill by setting up a foundation which will bear their names and continue the example of service that has been the hallmark of the Leger family. When I refer to the Leger family, I am thinking not only of Jules and Paul-Emile Leger.

I must also mention Gabrielle Leger, whose energy and enthusiasm have been an inspiration to this country and who has helped people in Canada and other countries achieve a better quality of life. The bill is flexible in its humanitarian aims. One of its objectives is to support and establish hospitals, rehabilitation centres, refuges and other similar institutions. Its objective is directly related to the one that consists in providing assistance to the aged and the handicapped. It is felt that thanks to the prestige enjoyed by the Leger family and to its dedication to philanthropic and humanitarian causes, the foundation will be able to elicit recognition and respect, both of which are essential to the success of any charitable endeavour.

In introducing the bill for second reading, I am very strongly of the view that this legislation adds a significant contribution to the good works carried out by the approximately 1,000 charitable foundations which exist in Canada. This element, along with the recognition which it gives to a great Canadian family, motivates me to feel pride in presenting the legislation. I commend it to the House for its support, and I also move that it go through Committee of the Whole and all other stages today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock and start my speech after lunch?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of every member of the Progressive Conservative caucus I speak in favour of the speedy passage today of Bill S-23 from the other place, which would incorporate the Jules and Paul-Emile Leger charitable foundation.
Jules and Paul-Emile Leger Foundation
If there are two Canadian brothers who have given more to their faith, to their neighbours on four continents and to the honour of Canada than these two, Mr. Speaker, I do not know their names.
Let me speak first of our former Governor General. The son of a store-keeping family of St. Anicet, Quebec, he studied at le College de Valleyfield, l'Universite de Montreal and at the Sorbonne de Paris. After a period as associate editor of Ottawa's own Le Droit, he joined our Department of External Affairs in 1940 and became an important part of its most golden age during the post-war period. At various times he was first secretary to our high commission in London; adviser to the Canadian delegation to the general assembly of the United Nations; ambassador to Mexico, France, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg and to the North Atlantic Council; under-Secretary of State for External Affairs; and, later, under-Secretary of State. In 1973, he was appointed to our highest office, that of Governor General.
The real greatness of this right hon. public servant, however, is perhaps better revealed by his conduct after he suffered such a serious stroke in 1974 that his brother, Cardinal Leger, evidently administered the last rites of the church to him. He recovered, but paralysis had struck both his left side and his speech organs. For three years with the daily help of his beloved and charming wife, Gaby, he forced himself to relearn both of our official languages. His courage and will power was sufficient that in time he could again work full days, visit all ten provinces and the Northwest Territories and provide inspiration for each disabled Canadian, whom individually and as a group he always urged never to despair. His expressed thoughts about Canada and the larger issues in life are profound and timely. Let me, Mr. Speaker, give only four examples.

Western civilization:
But times have already changed; we live now in a different age and its contours are not readily apparent. Western civilization, our civilization, is going around in circles and losing its vigour, as a result of a number of contradictions that have paralyzed its energies. Generations are in conflict because there is no recognition of the other's existence; we are insecure in our affluence; there is abject poverty and enormous wealth; conventional morality has lost its hold, and a desire for primeval purity has taken its place; acts of violence are being committed by those who oppose violence; communications technology is using satellites, while large political entities are going towards increasing regionalization.

On culture:
In Canada we have the beginnings of a culture, but it is not a complete culture. It takes centuries to shape a culture, centuries spent together.
On citizenship:
First, I wish to remain a good Canadian. Second, I want to continue to love the province of Quebec from Ottawa. Third, I want to continue to speak French in congenial surroundings. Fourth, I want to receive from you and your colleagues good government. Fifth, I want to pay taxes, moderately.

December 11, 1981
Jules and Paul-Emile Leger Foundation [ Translation]
On the future of Canada, and I quote:
We are now strong enough and sufficiently numerous and sure of ourselves to choose what suits us, to assimilate it and to add our own mark of originality, thus creating a multicultural civilization ...
It was indeed a national tragedy a year ago when the heart attack that struck him down prevented many Canadians from appreciating the many qualities of our twenty-first governor general. We were all profoundly affected by the loss of this great man. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, His Eminence Cardinal Paul-Emile Leger is still among us, after spending much of his time and energies with the lepers and handicapped children of Africa.
The cardinal was born in the hamlet of St. Anicet now fully 77 years ago. On Christmas day, 1923, after midnight mass, he resolved to become-
[ Translation]
-a Sulpician priest.
[English] *
After that, he said that life was a succession of miracles: first, the Grand Seminary in Montreal and ordination, then four years of seminary teaching in France, and the first opportunity for missionary work in Fukuoka, Japan, in the impossible years from 1933 to 1939. His war years were spent as pastor of the cathedral parish at Valleyfield in Quebec. Thereafter, he was sent to Rome to work closely with His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, in finding food and drugs for the Italian people.
In 1950, at only 46 years of age, he was named Archbishop of Montreal, and only three years later he became the first Montreal ecclesiastic to become a cardinal. Every night at 7 p.m. for the next seventeen years thereafter, he spoke of the faith by radio to the almost two million adherents of his archdiocese. He was a member of the central preparatory commission of the Second Vatican council from 1962 to 1965, and an architect of its important decree on ecumenism. His stature in the church grew so quickly that he was considered to be a future pope. However, in November of 1967 he astonished many people by retiring at 63 years of age to become a simple missionary priest in Africa. He said:
It has become clear to me that the Lord is asking me for deeds as well as words,
[ Translation]
Four years before, he had founded the movement FAME PEREO (I am dying of hunger), with the aim of collecting funds in order to care for some of the four million lepers in Africa. The Cardinal provided financial assistance to eighty-two leper colonies in twenty African countries. Since 1967, he has been working with lepers and the handicapped in his rehabilitation centre for the handicapped in Cameroon.

The following are but three examples of his expressed thoughts. To Canadian youth: "How will your generation change your lives in order to balance out the millions living in our rich centres of prosperity and the 3 billion dying of disease and hunger?"
On his life's work: "I can only provide the reminder that our prime task in life is to help our neighbour. That is all there is to it, yet it says everything".

His faith:
I take what the Lord gives me each day. I do not burden myself with memories* since they often inhibit one's action. My only concern is to practice what the Gospel preaches.

In short, like Mother Theresa of Calcutta, he is a living saint. Let me close, however, with a prophetic remark made by his brother, Jules, in the presence of the Cardinal in his opening address to Sherbrooke University in 1974, literally only hours before his stroke. He said:
A father had two sons. This was our father. To the one, he gave the gift of speech, to the other, that of silence. To each, he gave the reality of God. He assured them that that gift would enable them to make their way in life. The sons went their ways, the one in the service of the church, and the other, of the state.
On this basis, it is with great pleasure that I would call on all hon. members of this House to pass this measure as quickly as we can. Let us do it today.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, to speak in support of this bill. I quite often think that the activities of our lives obscure the reasons we are here. Speaking to this bill gives us an opportunity to reflect on some of the larger perspectives of life. I am reminded of the story of the passerby of a construction site. He asked three men there what they were doing. One said that he was merely a bricklayer and was laying some bricks; another said he was earning $30 an hour; and the third one said that he was building a cathedral. So it is that if we have larger visions of life, we can motivate and inspire other people. This bill reminds me of that type of vision.
One of my favourite questions when talking with people as I travel to my constituency every week on the plane, or even when talking with some of my colleagues, is this: Can you tell me who you are without giving a job description? We find ourselves so immersed in our activities that we fail to take a look at what our lives have done for others. In life, I think we probably fall into two categories. We can either be builders or wreckers. We can build into the lives of others with our words, deeds, actions and ideas, or we can wreck.
The bill we are discussing today honours two builders. It commemorates two Canadian heroes: the former Governor General, Jules Leger, and the cardinal, Paul-Emile Leger. Let us reflect for a moment on these two Canadian builders. First of all, the former Governor General, Jules Leger, was the
December 11, 1981

December 11, 1981
Jules and Paul-Emile Leger Foundation
from those who are poor. Quite often we are insulated from those who may be suffering because we have not experienced the type of situation they experience.
Last night as I was going outside the House following the vote one of our friends in the House here, a Member of Parliament, was having difficulty collapsing a wheelchair for another one of our colleagues here who has been hurt. I assisted in collapsing this wheelchair because I had done this for more than three years of my life when working with the Society of Crippled Children and Adults. As I was reflecting on that incident when leaving the House I thought this was a very simple task and I was glad that member had that opportunity, it seemed to me for the first time in his life, of collapsing a wheelchair for another person. I said to myself: This type of awareness is something we need because if we are aware of someone who is going through suffering, someone who is very close to us, we become more responsive to those who have needs.
I hope this foundation in the years ahead will make us more aware of those who have needs, be they handicapped or, as the objects of the bill state, those who might be sick, hungry or ill-treated. As I think of the perspective that is offered here 1 have hope for this foundation, and in closing I would just like to share at least one of my hopes.
At lunchtime I was discussing this particular bill with one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell). We were thinking of some of the implications this bill might have. We thought how nice, how good and how useful it would be if one of the implications of this bill would be to meet some of the needs of our native children. The Legers had a concern for children and for those who are needy. The plight of our native children is a national disgrace. Native children grow up on reserves that lack basic sanitation. They have no amenities. Even in my own constituency, where I have seven Indian reserves, in this year, 1981, they do not have water and sewer in any of their homes. When we think about the overcrowded and inadequate housing they face, the chronic unemployment and education which lacks native cultural content with few native teachers, when we think of the high incidence of health problems, alcoholism and suicide, we realize this is symptomatic of frustration and despair.
I cannot help but reflect, and hope as we support this bill, that there will be things coming from this foundation, which has very broad objectives and deals with very large areas, to benefit these people. I cannot help but think and hope that there will be an opportunity for addressing some of the concerns we have for those who have needs even here in Canada.
We may often ask ourselves why we need another organization. I always think of that little label I often give to people who I think go that extra mile. I call those people gimpers; someone who is prepared to go the extra mile, to do that little bit extra to provide for the needs they see in a given situation. I hope and trust that this foundation, because of the people that it honours and its objectives which have been set forth, will be the gimper that we need to help our society meet some of the needs that exist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Before putting the question I would say there seems to be some agreement among the three parties. It was mentioned by the hon. member that this legislation could go through all stages today. This can be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, by unanimous consent considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Jean-Luc Pepin: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-60, to amend the National Energy Board Act.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak very briefly on Bill C-60, but before doing so I should like to take one moment to add a personal tribute to Mr. Jules Leger. I had the honour to serve with him in the Department of External Affairs for a number of years and would not want this occasion to pass without my noting his extraordinary achievements and contribution to Canada.
Turning to Bill C-60, to amend the National Energy Board Act, I would like briefly to describe the amendments and indicate the reasons for them.
Two of the amendments are relatively minor. The change to Clause 2 on page 4 of the bill deletes the words "of acquiring lands and" from the subsection which sets out the terms of reference for the National Energy Board in approving the detailed routes of a pipeline. This change has been made in order to make it clear that there is no restriction on a pipeline company to enter into voluntary agreements with land owners between the time that a notice is served on the owner under Section 75 of the act and the time that the detailed route is approved by the board. Since it was never intended that there should be any restriction on such agreements, this change represents an improvement in the drafting.
A change to Clause 5 on page 6 will alter one of the mandatory terms that must be included in a land acquisition agreement or an arbitration award made between a pipeline company and land owner. The indemnification which the company must provide to the land owner from claims by third parties arising from the operation of the pipeline will not be lost if the damage results from an act of momentary carelessness on the part of the land owner. The amendment will provide that the protection can be lost only through some act
December 11, 1981

of gross negligence by the land owner. Evidence before the Senate committee indicated that this wording is now virtually standard in land acquisition agreements made by pipeline companies.
The change to Clause 5 on page 6 should be read together with the two changes to Clause 5 on page 12 of the bill. Together, these amendments will improve the flexibility available to a land owner in selecting lump sum or periodic payments for his or her compensation. As the bill was formerly worded, a land owner would have been forced to make one choice covering all of the compensation he or she would receive regardless of whether some of the types of damage would lend themselves better to the other manner of compensation. Further, the bill originally provided for a review of the amount of periodic payments only to a land owner whose land was being taken and not to neighbouring land owners whose lands were adversely affected. Both types of land owners will now be able to select a lump sum or periodic payments with respect to any part of their compensation and there will be a review of periodic payments in all cases.
During the debate in this House on the second reading of Bill C-60, two questions as to the interpretation of the bill were raised by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). It will be noted that the amendment to Clause 5 of the bill deals with one of those points, namely, the definition of market value contained in the proposed Subsection 75.19(2) of the act. That amendment will make it quite clear that at the time of each five-year review of periodic payments on the acquisition of land, changes in market value that have occurred since the original agreement or since the last review are to be taken into account in setting the new level of compensation.
The second point raised by the hon. member for Red Deer related to the wording of the proposed Subsection 73(1) of the act. This subsection restricts the jurisdiction of an arbitration committee to claims that arise directly out of the construction of a pipeline or the presence of a pipeline on the land. The hon. member questioned whether this subsection was worded too narrowly in that the phrase "operations of the company", which appears in other sections of the act dealing with the terms of reference of an arbitration committee, such as Subsections 75.1(1) and 75.12.(1), does not appear in Subsection 73(1).
There is a reason for this difference. The phrase "operations of the company" is a very broad one. Claims arising out of such operations could include many types that are beyond the ability of an arbitration committee, which is composed of experts in land evaluation, to decide and which can only be tried by the courts. An example of these might be claims arising out of torts such as highway traffic accidents, defamation or claims for breach of contract other than a contract for compensation for damages to land or even for claims arising out of financial or stock market operations of the company.
It is for this reason that the wording of Clause 73(1) confines an arbitration committee to claims that arise in
National Energy Board Act
relation to a particular pipeline, including leakage of the contents of the line, the activities of the company in building and operating the line and any interference with the use of the land caused by the presence of the pipeline. I am confident that no dispute which should properly be decided by the arbitration committee will be excluded from its jurisdiction.
In conclusion, I urge the House to support the amendments made by the Senate, since each is a clear improvement to the bill. We owe it to those who will be affected by pipeline construction that is now in the planning stages to implement these valuable suggestions.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I am pleased to indicate our agreement to these proposed amendments and to co-operate in any further considerations which might allow us to deal with these amendments and the passage of this bill expeditiously.
However, I cannot let this opportunity pass without pointing out what I consider to be some inconsistent behaviour, to put it in the kindest way. Just the other day we were forced to end debate on a profoundly important bill, Bill C-48, by closure. I think that bill will be back before this House for serious amendment in the not too distant future. We have been told that what is wrong with the operation of the House of Commons is an irresponsible opposition which takes too long to discuss things and that the government cannot deal with its legislative program expeditiously enough. I just want to point out that Bill C-60, which the Senate has sent back to us with some amendments, was passed in this House expeditiously on a Friday afternoon. That was on March 6, 1981, nine months ago. The government brought it to us and said it was needed quickly so that various pipeline projects could be put into effect and farmers, ranchers and land owners would be able to take advantage of these superior and much improved methods of handling the transfer of land rights to the pipeline companies. We dealt with the bill expeditiously, and we can now see how factual representations the government made to us were. On March 6 it was absolutely vital that we get through it quickly. We co-operated. We thought hon. members opposite were telling the truth. We think the bill is an improvement. Nine months later the government brings these amendments forward.


David P. Smith: That is the period of gestation.


Harvie Andre: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) says nine months is the period of gestation. The mother must be disappointed!
When other accusations are made and when hon. members opposite say that the reason there is delay in this House is an unco-operative opposition, I hope and trust people will recognize that more frequently than not the delay is the result of an incompetent government.
However, we certainly agree to the quick passage this afternoon of this second version of the bill.

December 11, 1981
National Energy Board Act


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to speak about the amendments to Bill C-60, and I do so on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), our energy critic, who has given me this opportunity to speak about these amendments.
I want to reiterate some of the things brought forward by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). We dealt with this bill nine months ago, and during those nine months the residents of the Yahk area have experienced disruption. Over the past nine months the people of Yahk have been the actual builders of Bill C-60. The RCMP went out in riot gear to expropriate land. The lands of four residents were expropriated, but during that time the Northern Pipeline Agency mysteriously came in and resolved the situation for those four land owners. The agency made a commitment which satisfied those four residents.
Let me talk about the rest of the community. There was a will to try to co-operate, even though the people saw what was going to happen to them. In October of 1980 the people affected were given small pittances of remuneration. They were promised that if settlements were made in another area, they would be treated equally.
I visited the home of one of these residents the other day. I was accompanied by a representative of the Northern Pipeline Agency and a representative from Foothills Pipe Lines. I asked those two representatives to look out the window and see what that family had to put up with. The pipeline runs within 50 feet of the building. Road access to their home was cut off. From October of 1980 until December 1981 they have suffered the inconvenience of having machinery about. There has been dust and dirt. Their land has been uprooted. In September two inches of top soil were put down and seeds were thrown on to it. The entrance these people had been using to come in and go out had been destroyed to the point where they could not drive on it. I asked those two representatives how they would react if all this happened to their homes and what they would do if they had to leave their cars outside their property and walk through ditches to a home full of dust and dirt. I wonder how they would react if their property were expropriated or their trees were cut down and they were told the value of those trees would be assessed at a later date. These are the kinds of outrageous things that are going on.
Even though these people were allowed to participate in the program, expropriation liens were put on their properties. It has now been agreed that they will be removed.
The pipeline also crossed a creek called Hawkins Creek, a traditional water supply. That has been disrupted, and no one will undertake to help resolve that problem.
There is very little topsoil in the Yahk area, but did Foothills save the topsoil? Did Foothills put it aside, dig gravel and backfill with gravel and then put a little topsoil on top? No, that would be too costly. Foothills dug it up, mixed it up, finished laying the pipe and put all tht material back in, and that was it. Can hon. members imagine what the farmers of that area are thinking? They are told there is no topsoil
available for the 150 foot strip through their properties. If there is no topsoil available to the Northern Pipeline Agency, I suppose it is not available to the farmers either. That topsoil was very valuable to the farmers because of fertilizer build up over the years.
I hope the minister will stand by his word. When we were debating this bill at an earlier stage, he said these people would be properly represented, that the provisions of this bill would be retroactive and that the people would be given the opportunity to come back and discuss their problems. The minister said these people would be reimbursed or their land brought up to proper standards. That is the least the people should expect and I think it is only fair. If there is any fairness for the four families whose properties were expropriated and if the minister takes into account the value of the gravel involved, then surely to goodness the value of the topsoil removed and the lawn damage should also be taken into account since this is a matter of great significance to the people affected.
Those are the kinds of hardships that have been created because of the delay of this bill. The government has a responsibility to those who have had to suffer. I would like a commitment from the government that it will bring in this bill when it is finally adopted by the Senate and instruct these people to come into the area and hold hearings. Hopefully people will be treated in the proper way provided in the bill. A commitment was given that they would have that opportunity and that the rest of Canada would enjoy the provisions of this bill.
The Conservative Party talks about the freedom to own land. I did not see any Conservative member stand up and try and protect the rights of those individuals which are being infringed upon. Where were the Conservatives at that time? Was it because it was the Foothills Pipe Lines that was involved? Could that have been why we did not hear from the Conservative Party in an attempt to protect the rights of these individuals? I certainly congratulate my party, the NDP, for standing up and being counted and saying that there has been a violation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Don't break your arm.


Gerald Augustine Regan: That's a new twist in politics.


Sidney James Parker: While I am at it, I want to criticize the province of British Columbia for allowing an agency to come through that beautiful province, carry out the kinds of programs they have, and doing what they did to our people who live in B.C. for the benefit of exporting natural gas to the Americans. We fought that pipeline and I will carry on the fight for these individuals within the riding of Kootenay East-Revelstoke.
December 11, 1981


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I will not delay the House very long. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) did not take long when he was speaking.
When this pipeline becomes a reality, quite a bit of mileage of it will pass through the constituency of Bow River. There has been considerable concern on the part of many people there and I want to voice one or two of those concerns.
There is one part of this bill that I like very much. If the company does not make a proper award, it goes to arbitration and if the arbitration board rules that it exceeds 85 per cent of the amount offered, all legal fees must be paid by the company. That is proper.
In the Alberta department of highways we worked on the principle that it was a house for a house. When land was disrupted, it had to be left in at least as good a condition as it was found. I have seen rocks, gumbo, black loam, bottles and debris ploughed into the land. There has been no concern for the land owner at all. I hope there will not be a repeat of that type of situation when the pipeline goes through. It is a matter of taking this to the company.
When we had a situation like that, I asked the company man to take a look at it. It was corrected immediately to the satisfaction of the land owner. It is not right when people take advantage of a land owner, thinking that he is only a farmer, that he has no friends and cannot go to court so we will plough our way through, ruin his land and give him the very least possible. I hope that will not be the attitude of those building this pipeline. It is not the attitude of the Alberta government when taking land for highways or other purposes.
One member said that it is a case of stockpiling black dirt. It is an extra expense, but it is an expense charged to that work. It is a bother, a nuisance and a rip-off of black soil, but black soil is a wonderful thing. It is that six inches that feeds the world. We cannot afford to lose that two, three or six inches of black dirt, wherever it happens to be. The Alberta department of highways has an insistent clause: The construction company must stockpile that black dirt. After the work has been done, the soil must be put back.
An experiment was carried out in Alberta. After one year the land did not look that great, but after three years of proper work it was back to the same condition it was before it was disrupted. The crops now grow just as well as previously. We cannot afford the loss of good farmland in this country. There is too little of it now. Farmers should not be expected to bear the brunt of the cost of a large project such as this pipeline. It should be paid for by all the people of this country and the United States, not by just the land owners. When a pipeline is built across a farmer's land, whether it is an acre, quarter section, section or several sections, he should be compensated for the amount of grain he would have grown on that land for many years into the future. That is not asking too much. That is simply being fair to our farmers.
I hope that those who construct the pipeline will be fair to the farmers and not only to those who put up the capital. Farmers are generally reasonable people. I have had some
Meat Import Act
difficult situations to deal with but never once was I not able to go to the farm, stand on the land affected and make a settlement. No matter how irate the farmer is, he is still reasonable.
All the farmer wants is that the land be put back the way it was before so that he can continue to produce food for the world and support his family. This is a wonderful opportunity for the companies involved to show they have some human interest by ensuring that when they disrupt a farm, they will put the land back in at least as good a condition as it was before they appeared on the scene.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before proceeding to report stage of Bill C-46, the Chair has reservations concerning amendments standing in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). Has the hon. member any representations to make at this time concerning those amendments?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the chair might give an indication of the reservations it has about the amendments in order that we might better meet the point and argue it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are two amendments to the bill. They seek to amend the definiton of meat by including not only beef and veal, which are in the bill, but lamb. As such, the amendments appear to be substantive. They go beyond what is permitted by way of amendment.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what you have said, but this is a meat import act. Certainly lamb is meat. I cannot understand how there is any difficulty with this amendment, which seeks to include another meat in a meat import act. That is all I can say. I am completely at a loss to understand why there is any question about including meat in a meat import act.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it might assist the Chair in any difficulty, after the cogent argument put by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), if I say it is the intention of those in the opposition to let the amendment go on division.

December 11, 1981
Meat Import Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair invites observations from hon. members on the government side of the House.


Eugene Whelan: My observations will be very quick and short, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member and I have discussed this fully in committee. There are several reasons we do not think we should accept the amendment, but one of the basic reasons is an agreement that we had made between New Zealand and Canadian producers. They have come to an agreement whereby no fresh lamb would be imported into Canada for one year until they can work out a proper trading arrangement. We think it would be a breaking of faith-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I point out, with respect to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), that the Chair is inviting procedural arguments as to the admissibility of the amendments at this stage. Does the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) rise on this matter?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have read the definition. What we are talking about in that bill is really an additional kind of meat. It is within the ambit of the bill in that the bill intends, or at least tries, to define what is meat.
We talked about beef just a moment ago. What the Chair is really saying is that ground beef would be admissible, but lamb is not because it is not beef, or whatever else is in that definition. I would like to find anyone in the Department of Agriculture who would define meat as beef or not define lamb as meat. Even on Friday afternoon, I think lamb is still meat.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Agriculture would agree that the intent of the bill is to regulate what is commonly referred to as red meat, and that includes not only beef but it includes pork, mutton and lamb. So it is in terms of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, the Chair has to be guided by the procedures of the House.
Clause 2 reads as follows:
In this Act,
"meat" means fresh, chilled and frozen beef and veal;-
That is carefully defined in the clause.
There are two amendments offered in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). In the opinion of the Chair, they introduce a new definition to Clause 2 which is an amendment of a substantive nature to the interpretation clause.
On this point, Beauchesne's fifth edition, paragraph (10) of Citation 773 states as follows:
A substantive amendment may not be introduced by way of a modification to the interpretation clause of a bill.
For this reason, the opinion of the Chair is that Motion No. 1 is not acceptable.
The principle of the bill, as enunciated in the long title and in the Royal Recommendation concerns meat which is explicitly defined in Clause 2 as "beef and veal".
Motion No. 2 and, for that matter, Motion No. 1 are concerned principally with the insertion of a new element, namely lamb into the bill.
For the benefit of the hon. member, I also refer him to Beauchesne's fifth edition, paragraph (1) of Citation 773. Consequently, because Motion No. 2 extends the purposes of the bill beyond its scope, the Chair must rule it out of order.


Douglas Charles Neil: I should like to make one additional point. I appreciate the fact the Chair has given its ruling, but if we were to read the beginning of the bill, we would find it reads, "An act to regulate the importation into Canada of fresh, chilled and frozen meat and to amend the Export and Import Permits Act". If the Chair's ruling holds, it means that at no time in the future can the government introduce any amendment to this bill to include anything other than beef. I invite the Chair to read the first clause containing the word "meat". As far as I and the people of Canada are concerned, the word "meat" includes something more than beef. It includes lamb, mutton goat and any other kind of meat.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has made a ruling. It is the interpretation of the Chair, after very careful consideration of the precedents, that this would be a substantive amendment, and as such is now ruled not acceptable.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the bill has to be moved.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-46 to regulate the importation into Canada of fresh, chilled and frozen meat and to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? When shall the bill be read a third time?


Erik Nielsen: The minister had risen to be recognized. He was waiting to be recognized, and after he has been recognized there are speakers both in this party and in the party to my left who would like to participate on second reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is perfectly right in calling the attention of the Chair to the need for careful observance of procedure. This was report stage of the bill. I now invite third reading, which is debatable, and in which case all the hon. members may be recognized. The Chair should have asked for concurrence of report stage and then invited third reading, which is what I am hoping to do now, with the consent of hon. members.


Eugene Whelan: that the bill be concurred in.
December 11, 1981


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Eugene Whelan: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I should make a comment about many things concerning meat production in Canada. I will be as brief as I possibly can. I will probably not cover all aspects of the subject, which many of the members would like me to put on the record today, because of lack of time.
I am sure that all members of the meat industry, as well as Canadian consumers, will be pleased to see this bill finally enacted into law. I am sure the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) would say that if he had included that other group in it, they would also be pleased.
The proposal for a meat import law was widely discussed before the act was drafted. There was a lively debate at second reading and the bill was thoroughly debated in committee. Also in committee, provisions were made for the interested parties to present their views, and many organizations took advantage of that opportunity.
I think 1 can safely say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill represents the best thinking on the subject by all parties concerned. I believe it will help a great deal to assist the beef industry and to provide consumers with the assurance that adequate supplies of red meat will always be available at reasonable prices.
Canada is the only major beef importing country in the world that has not had an ongoing beef import policy. Without such a policy, we were vulnerable to market distortions and international price swings which are beyond our control. The ad hoc import quotas, which we have been applying on a periodic basis, have led to uncertainties, both for our trading partners and for the Canadian beef industry. With this act we now have permanent controls in place.
Canada is both an importer and an exporter of beef. About 90 per cent of imports are from New Zealand and Australia and are primarily for manufacturing or the lower end of the hotel, the restaurant and the institutional trade. The other 10 per cent comes from the United States and is primarily high quality cuts for the deluxe hotel and restaurant trade.
In 1980 Canada imported 115 million pounds of beef and veal and exported 100 million pounds. In terms of export, the United States of America is by far our most important customer, buying nearly 92 million pounds.
Bill C-46 roughly parallels the U.S. Meat Import Law, including the counter-cyclical formula which allows for lower import quotas when domestic production is high, and higher import quotas when Canadian production is low. This will allow Canada to remain an integral part of the North American livestock economy.
I want to comment briefly, Mr. Speaker, on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw to have lamb included under the provisions of the act. This matter was discussed in committee and the answers were given at that time. Just last month we reached an agreement with New
Meat Import Act
Zealand to suspend all shipments of chilled lamb carcasses for the next 12 months. This should give the Canadian industry time to study the situation, and we always have access to the safeguard provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act which can be used in an ad hoc fashion in the event of any disruptions in the importation of this product that can be disruptive to our domestically-produced products market. We must increase lamb production in Canada. Although the sheep industry in Canada is expanding at a significant rate, Canada still relies on imports for 80 per cent of its lamb consumption. I believe the market for Canadian lamb could be considerably strengthened and expanded through improved marketing mechanisms and market development activity.
I might also add that if we were to try to include lamb in the act now, it would mean working out a formula to guide import levels, and that would further delay the bill.


Douglas Charles Neil: It would not delay the bill one bit, and the minister knows it.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) did not include in his amendment any criteria for import levels. The proposal of the hon. member would provide for a control to be placed on imports of lamb, but he failed to mention any criteria which could be used to establish import levels. In other words, no formula was proposed to establish import levels because the circumstances and criteria under which lamb imports are to be controlled were not spelled out. The producers and consumers were not given any assurance regarding the predictability of lamb imports. Even New Zealanders cannot promise that under present world market conditions and considering the demand for their product.
In the past, the beef industry has had little opportunity to comment on annual beef import levels before they were put in place. As I said, the industry has been awaiting this legislation for a long time. Under the meat import act there will be an advisory committee that can examine the relevant information and advise the minister before he makes a decision on the import level for the coming year. The advisory committee will consist of representatives of a cross-section of the beef marketing chain, from producer to consumer. I expect that I will be inviting members of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Association of Consumers and the Canadian Meat Council, among others, to serve on the committee.
This legislation, which clearly spells out the criteria under which beef imports will be controlled, should provide cattle producers with greater confidence. At the same time, consumers will have access to world supplies of beef at times when Canadian supplies are not sufficient to serve the market. Over time, the act will help to stabilize both supplies and prices.
As I said before, the act will not answer all the questions of Canadian beef producers. One of the main concerns in the many letters I have received is that they want control of imports of live cattle coming into our market, which can be very disruptive to the supply position in slaughtering opera-

December 11, 1981
Meat Import Act
tions in Canada. We saw this happen last year. We predict that it will happen again this year. This act does not have anything to do with live cattle. I make that very clear, but I know most hon. members in the House are aware of this. It is one of the most unpredictable problems which they face, especially when imports from another country can take over as much as 18 per cent of the slaughter market in the country. This is not per day, per week or per month; this is for several months in the year. This does not happen in any other country in the world. For example, in the province of Ontario imported live cattle took over 25 per cent of the slaughter market for over four months. One could imagine what would happen in the United States of America, which is where these cattle come from, if someone took over that high a percentage of its market. I am sure it would not be allowed for very long.
Earlier, I talked in the House about one of the American states passing a law which was a non-tariff barrier. This act will be disruptive in the potato market in the country if it is allowed to continue. If we go through the procedure of GATT hearings and appointing an independent court of review, commission of review or whatever, it will take some time to rectify what has been done by the state of Maine. It is controlling the imports into the United States, which is contrary to the international trade agreement. Before we even started to draft this act before us, hon. members and people who appeared before the committee were well aware of the views of some of our trading partners.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my remarks today in view of Your Honour's ruling. I find it almost incomprehensible that only in the Parliament of Canada is lamb not meat; it is absolutely unbelievable. I listened to the minister's few comments. He said that if we included lamb in the bill, it would require considerable work to draft some of the clauses. He also said that it would cause delays and that there is no formula. The amendment does not require a formula. The amendment which I put forward provided for the very thing which the minister arranged earlier this year when he issued a news release indicating that the agreement between the New Zealand Meat Producers Board and the Canada Sheep Council was a voluntary agreement to restrict and suspend until Easter 1982 the shipment of lamb into the country.
I do not believe that the minister is really interested in the welfare of Canadian farmers. The Canada Sheep Council appeared before the committee. It made representations to him. It told him what was the problem, but he turned a deaf ear. I am absolutely shocked that the minister is not prepared to include lamb and to protect the lamb producers of the country. It is an infant industry. These people are trying to build up a sheep and lamb-raising industry. They have had many problems over the years. They were at their peak in 1940, and by 1978 they were getting well into the business. During the last three years the sheep industry in Canada increased by 30 per cent. Then they ran into difficulties
because New Zealand was importing fresh chilled lamb into Canada at a time when the market was at its peak. It depressed the market, and lamb producers were selling lamb at less than the cost of production. We had an opportunity to help this new industry, but it did not happen.
I will not say anymore, but I suggest that if the industry has difficulties, it is no one's fault but the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the government he represents.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a short intervention on third reading of Bill C-46, but before doing so I want to make a brief comment about the subject of lamb and sheep imports, as well as our Canadian industry. Perhaps it was because there was no meat import bill about 40 years ago that the lamb and sheep industry in Canada has been in continuous trouble. It was a thriving industry prior to the last war. I was surrounded by four large sheep outfits on my cattle ranch, but their downfall began with the lack of good Scots sheep herders who spent their lifetime herding sheep. When it became difficult to attract them from Scotland, the industry began to have problems. Its real problems began soon after the war because of the importation of much cheaper lamb and mutton from Australia and New Zealand. As a result, in Canada we are still consuming less than two pounds per capita of lamb and mutton per year. This amount is almost negligible, Mr. Speaker. If legislation like this had been in place 40 years ago, perhaps we would still have in Canada a major lamb, sheep and wool industry. However, as the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) said, it is coming back.
We in the official opposition fully support Bill C-46, Mr. Speaker, and urge final passage of it this afternoon. My remarks and those of my colleagues will be very brief, I can assure you.
First of all, I should like to make some appropriate background comments. Canada's beef cattle industry has recommended and worked hard for beef, or meat import legislation since 1970. My interest in this subject began two years before I became politically involved in 1972, and I might add that my motivation was partly the need for this kind of legislation in 1970.
In 1970 the Canadian Cattlemen's Association first proposed this type of legislation at a meeting with the then minister of agriculture, the Hon. Bud Olson.
If there was ever any doubt about the need for and the propriety of such legislation, that was entirely removed in 1976 when Canada, and especially our domestic beef-cattle industry, was completely overwhelmed with offshore beef imports from Australia and New Zealand. At that time, those offshore beef imports had unrestricted access to Canadian markets and they were coming in at prices well below those of the same products imported to the United States. It was also a time in our cattle production cycle when we were producing an alltime record amount of domestic beef.

December 11, 1981

The years 1975 and 1976 were truly disastrous for the Canadian cattle industry because of those unrestricted imports coming into our markets on top of our own record high domestic supplies. In many respects, our cattle industry has never fully recovered from that disaster because there is no genuine incentive, to stay in or go back into or start up a beef-cattle operation in Canada. There is no confidence in the political direction of this government in so far as the long-term future of our cattle industry is concerned. It is to be hoped that this new legislation, a first of its kind, will help change that situation.
I would be remiss indeed, if I did not remind the House of the background contribution to this legislation made by this party's beef import consultative committee during the late summer of 1979. I was privileged to be chairman of that committee, and I recall very well the valuable input it received from cattle producers and many related people in the industry.
The legislation before us today contains the essential elements that emerged from that consultative committee over two years ago. Although our standing committee study of the bill was split over the summer recess, it was a good session in committee.
It is appropriate to commend the input to that committee by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. Their presentation was easily the most in depth and carefully researched to come before it. That is quite understandable, in view of its 11 years of effort and support for this kind of legislation. We should be particularly grateful to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association for the improvements it suggested to the quota formula that is now part of the bill dealing with forward projections of cattle numbers. The association pointed out how difficult that exercise would be, and the bill has been improved.
As I have already indicated, the greatest potential benefit of this legislation will be the restoration of some badly needed confidence in the long-term viability of Canada's beef cattle industry. Furthermore, this new legislation will be visible evidence that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is sensitive to the situation in the beef-cattle industry and that he does indeed care.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment about the state of our cattle industry as we approach this year end. Our industry is indeed in a nation-wide crisis in all sectors of cattle and beef production. In some respects it is a crisis even more serious than that of the 1930s-and I will quickly expand on that-because there are now many more farmers, especially cattle producers, who are losing their farms and ranches due to forced sales, to bankruptcies and to bank foreclosures. These and other related problems come about as a result of the difficulties experienced with cash flow, or, more properly, lack of cash flow. At least in the 1930s we survived in many cases without any cash flow by simply living off the land.
The cattle industry is presently undergoing a critical examination and evaluation by three different agencies. First of all there were the public hearings held by the Senate's agriculture committee following its working paper on alternatives to marketing and stabilization for our beef industry. That committee
Meat Import Act
concluded its public hearings last Wednesday in Ottawa, and I was privileged to present some of my personal views there.
The second ongoing event is the questionnaire sent out by the Minister of Agriculture over his signature to 140,000 cattle producers, including 53,000 dairy producers.
Third, there is the minister's two-man investigative committee which, I understand, has completed the physical investigation and is now in the process of preparing a report.
The minister has made it very clear to me that he will not make any public statements indicating what the federal government's program might or might not be in relation to the Canadian cattle crisis until after the three exercises are over and the reports are in. That is understandable and it is fair.
I conclude by urging the minister to use the stabilization legislation that has been on the books in amended form since 1975-and he has used it already on several occasions-in order to bring in a national, harmonized stabilization program for the cattle industry that involves the three sectors that should be involved, that is, the federal government, the governments of the cattle provinces and the cattle producers and feeders on a voluntary basis.
I can only suggest that if they are all approached and brought together, there will be an understanding and a will to do something about the situation in which we find ourselves now in spite of the provincial programs that are becoming a little too numerous. In case there is any misunderstanding, such a national stabilization program would in no way involve a marketing board with or without supply management.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to comment on third reading of Bill C-46, the meat import legislation. This idea has been around since the early 1970s and a great many organizations have favoured some form of import law for meats. I am afraid that a great many of those organizations will be disappointed with this particular development, but it is better than nothing.
For that reason, we will tend to give it some support, with the reservations that I would like to spend a few minutes outlining. It seems to me that what we are doing with the meat import law is generally recognized by most economists who have been dealing with the issue. In effect, we are dealing with a form of supply management. We are attempting, with an import law, to restrict the amount of meat and, in this case, restrict only beef. In the House of Commons, "meat" means only beef and frozen veal. However, it is a recognition that there is a requirement, on occasion, to interfere with the free market system and with the free exchange of goods. In 1976, when imports almost doubled, this was brought to the attention of even the most rabid free enterpriser. We now have fairly wide-ranging support and a minimal attempt at supply management.

December 11, 1981
Meat Import Act
In pure, theoretical market or economic terms, the countercyclical idea is a strictly philosophical concept which cannot be found in real life. Our beef cycly runs similarly to that of Australia, which runs similarly to that of New Zealand. Any attempt to pretend to implement a counter-cyclical formula will not result in a change in the cycles in those countries. They will not reduce production when our production is at a high point, and they will not produce more beef at times when ours appears to be declining. They will react to the same economic forces on a worldwide basis as those to which we have been reacting, and their overproduction periods will occur at pretty much the same time as our periods of overproduction.
By restricting this meat import bill only to beef and to some classes of veal, the government is telling us in advance what it really thinks of this particular industry. At the beginning of 1981, the government opened the quotas wide open. We had a form of quota which had been in existence for the past decade or so. However, this year, when the cattle cycle was at a point when there probably should have been a quota, the government decided to have no quota at all. As a result, because New Zealand and Australia are at a low point in their production cycles, they did not send us very much meat, but we did receive about one million pounds of European meat into the country. Presumably, these historical imports will become entrenched in practice and will give these countries a foot in the door of our markets, while we find it very difficult to gain entry into their markets.
Meanwhile, back on the farms and ranches of this country, cattle producers are dying a very painful death owing to low prices for beef. This is supposedly the signal to tighten up imports under any counter-cyclical law, but our borders are still wide open. Not only are they wide open, but, as well, during the last round of the GATT negotiations, the New Zealanders were able to gain guaranteed access to this country's markets, which probably overrules the bottom end of the import quota from three to five years out of ten years, depending on whose set of outlook figures one uses. Therefore, the door has been permanently propped open for these imports outside of this law, and the guaranteed minimum access agreements under GATT override this law. Therefore, the law itself will only be in effect from five to seven years out of ten years.
I can say that both parties in opposition did try to improve this bill. We were prepared to support the attempt of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) to include lamb and mutton in the law. We had also proposed that under the law we should have a board, which would monitor and take responsibility for bringing imports into this country so that producers in Canada would be assured that imports would not be brought in at prices lower than the domestic price. That is not a new concept. The Canadian Dairy Commission does that with butter and cheese. We thought that it would only be fair if Canadian meat producers had the same kind of protection. Unfortunately, the government refused to pick up that option. Under the rules of the House and of the committee, as Your
Honour knows, such substantive amendments were ruled out of order.
We think that, short of a miracle or a concentrated drive on the part of the Government of Canada and the provinces, the meat industry in this country is in for very difficult times at the producer level. We think there is a clear need for a kind of meat marketing policy which will include all of the red meats, poultry and eggs in one commodity board which can make progressive plans which will be of use to all of these sectors in the meat industry, instead of setting up separate agencies on boards so that one is picking at the other's market.
We think that this is the only way to rationalize the meat industry in a manner which will be of use to producers in this country and which will provide consumers with the plentiful supplies of meat and poultry products. We think that this bill goes only a little way toward that objective. We think it is a very small, tiny, baby step toward the kind of meat marketing authority that the producers in this country have been demanding and require. We think its only use is to demonstrate a willingness to consider a feeble attempt at supply management. Because the bill is making that attempt to control supplies of meat which come into the country and therefore control supplies available on the domestic market, we will grant our support to the bill and wish it a speedy passage.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill for the Canadian cattle industry. I am very pleased to have an opportunity this afternoon to say a few words in the final stages of third reading of this bill. It is a great relief to many of us that we in this country will finally be getting a meat import law. We went through the meat definitions earlier, and I will refer to that later if I have the time. However, it is a great relief that we will have this piece of legislation.
We on this side support the bill, but we support it with some reservations. I am glad to see the minister is here this afternoon, and I would like to point out to him why we have some reservations concerning the bill.
The hon. member from the NDP who spoke previously said that it is a feeble attempt at supply management. It is very much of a feeble attempt at supply management for two reasons. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) who spoke earlier has been involved with this bill for over ten years, which is a testimony to the ability of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to get minimal things through his cabinet so that we can have some protection for the beef industry in this country.
To paraphrase the minister, he said that Canada is the only major beef importing country which does not have some kind of policy which restricts imports into this country. We all know that, and we have been telling him that in this country for the last ten years. It seems ironic, when we do get a bill which will protect imports in this country, that it will be largely symbolic because of the way we were forced to accept the guaranteed minimum access level to which reference was made earlier this afternoon. The meat import law which is in front of us will not
December 11, 1981

be able to do the kind of job that it could have done had we had better representations on behalf of the Canadian cattle industry at the latest round of the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade. It seems ironic that at that meeting we were represented by the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who was from western Canada and who was in the cabinet. If anyone should have known what was involved in the guaranteed minimum access which Canada granted to its trading partners in GATT, it should have been that minister. However, what did happen, to quote some figures very briefly, is that as a result of negotiations at GATT, Canada agreed to accept approximately 10 per cent to 15 per cent more beef on a per capita basis than the Americans accepted. What that means is largely that this bill will be ineffective. It will be even worse than that. Had the bill been in operation for the last two years, the beef import law formula would not have come into effect at all. When we have a situation in which the formula does come into effect, it will mean that Canada will again be accepting more beef on a per capita basis than will the Americans. I give notice to the minister that what will happen then is that live cattle will be displaced out of Canada into the United States, causing problems with regard to our trading relations with the Americans. We experienced this in 1976 when they closed the border, not only to beef but to pork as well.


Eugene Whelan: You should have taken them to GATT.


Charles James Mayer: The minister says we should have taken them to GATT. Why didn't he take them to GATT? He is the Minister of Agriculture responsible for the total industry across the country. If he felt strongly enough about it and could convince his cabinet colleagues that this was the proper thing to do to protect the beef industry which he represents from one end of this great country to the other, he should have taken them to GATT. He would have received total support from the agricultural community. It is easy for him to sit in the House now and say that we should have taken them to GATT, implying that he is a good fellow, but why didn't the minister take them to GATT at the time? We would have been very pleased to see that happen, and the minister would have received tremendous support from the agricultural industry. In that regard, I wish he would think of those things at the time they happen and go to bat then for the Canadian beef industry.
Let me refer to a study done by the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture. The report was released in October 1977. The first time I ever came to Ottawa was to appear before that committee. At that time, some five years ago, it was universally agreed that a beef import law, or a meat import law patterned largely after what the Americans were doing, would have been beneficial to the beef industry. As the minister pointed out in his remarks on this bill earlier on, we know this bill is not going to be a panacea, something which solves all the problems of the industry, but it is one thing that would have helped a tremendous amount had it been in
Meat Import Act
existence five, six or seven years ago. We could have had a meat import law in effect at that time that contained a formula that would have worked without being subject to the guaranteed minimum access levels. These are the kinds of things that are on this minister's head when it comes to making this meat import law as effective as possible for Canadian beef producers.
I cannot emphasize too strongly how badly the industry was served by a previous Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who was a cattleman from Alberta. If anyone should have known what would have been acceptable, workable and helpful to the Canadian beef industry, which is largely located in his province, it was him, yet he was the minister who was responsible for seeing that we agreed to very damaging guaranteed minimum access levels under the agreement that was signed. That points out how important this present Minister of Agriculture has been in terms of influencing his cabinet colleagues in relation to legislation to protect the Canadian agricultural industry in general and, in this case, specifically the beef industry.
Despite all the reservations we have about this measure in terms of its ability to function and do the job intended, we very much support the bill. We have to give credit to the government for accepting two amendments at committee which I think will make the bill much more workable. The main amendment is an amendment that makes better use of the formula mechanism. It gives it a much more responsive base figure for deriving quotas. That is going to be more beneficial to the industry. We have to give the government credit for accepting that amendment, and I mean that in all sincerity. I think everybody would agree that this is a very good amendment.
The other amendment was a minor one in terms of seeing that the advisory committee is sufficiently staffed in the event that one of the members is unable to attend, for whatever reason. That is a good amendment and I think the minister should be pleased that everybody agreed that it should be at the minister's discretion whom he appoints. In that sense we have confidence in the Minister of Agriculture having the discretionary power to appoint people to serve on that committee if somebody is unable to attend for health reasons, personal family reasons, or for whatever other reason.
Our major criticism in terms of this measure is that we did not have it in 1974, 1975 and 1976, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. At that time the Canadian industry was literally being clobbered by offshore New Zealand and Australia beef. At that time beef that stood on docks in Australia and New Zealand commanded a different price simply because of different destinations. There was a difference at that time of some 25 cents to 30 cents a pound for imported beef originating from the same source but landing in Montreal and New York. That was simply because Canada was the only major importer of beef around the world that did not have some form of import protection.
The general view of the cattle industry at that time was that we did not favour any kind of restrictions. The quickest way to

December 11, 1981
Meat Import Act
get rid of the surplus is to let the market absorb it at whatever price it can be absorbed at, getting rid of the surplus, getting it out of the way so we can get back into a profitable price situation.
What did happen at that time was that the European Economic Community totally cut off the importation of any beef. There were boats literally in the middle of the ocean, yet the European Economic Community simply would not allow them to unload their cargoes of beef. This small country of Canada, with something like 20 million people and a per capita consumption that is less than that of the United States, was left as the only country in the world of any significance in terms of imported beef without import restrictions of some kind. We had no choice but to ask for import restrictions.
Perhaps the minister will remember an opportunity I had, along with colleagues from Manitoba at the time, of meeting with him in the middle of winter on a very cold February evening in Winnipeg. We tried to impress upon him our need for some kind of protection against the vast amounts of meats coming in from Australia and New Zealand. The minister did not see fit to do anything about this until almost the end of 1976 after we had suffered through two very bad years as far as imports are concerned. At that time he brought in import restrictions under the Export and Import Permits Act, which he could certainly have done a lot sooner.
There are all kinds of empirical and statistical evidence to suggest that because we were importing low quality cow-beef in vast quantities, the finished beef market here in Canada was depressed. What did happen in terms of being contra-cyclical was that more people sold off more cows than they should have when the price was depressed more than it needed to be because we were bringing in extra supplies of beef from offshore. The whole industry suffered more than it would have had we had some protection such as we are providing today. The industry suffered more than was needed and, consequently, has taken longer to get back on its feet.
The industry is caught now, as are most industries, in a terrible situation as far as the total economy is concerned. People are now saying that the cure-all as far as the cattle industry is concerned is a supply management system allowing the government to regulate the supply of beef through quotas. This has all kinds of implications.
It is wishful thinking on the part of the minister if he thinks he can bring in a supply management system for beef which will help in the short run in the next six months, eight months or a year, which I suggest is the period of time when the industry needs help. First of all it will be a massive job to bring in any kind of program that involves supply management and quotas for the beef industry.
Those of us in western Canada where three-quarters of the beef herd is located could make a very good argument that when the industry suffers, those who suffer the most and soonest are the cow-calf operators. The feed lot industry suffers as well. The whole industry is in trouble. However, in
order to stabilize and formulate long-term solutions to the problems in the industry, the situation with the cow-calf operators must be of primary concern.
In addition to the bureaucratic nightmare which could result from a supply management system for beef, the concern of western Canadian producers would be that its borders would be closed to the United States. This would be detrimental to us in western Canada because the United States provides an outlet and safety valve for many of our feeder cattle and cull cows that go south of the border. At the same time we have a situation in which other provinces are providing subsidies to attract the beef industry into their provinces. That is acceptable, but the difficulties presented to us in western Canada as a result of the closing of the American border would be of major significance, and this question needs to be addressed. If the Minister of Agriculture is interested in giving aid to the beef industry in Canada, he should lead the way in trying to establish a uniform stabilization program across the country. It is evident now that virtually every substantial beef producing province is involved in some way in the support of the beef industry. It is very difficult for my province of Manitoba, where there is a relatively small agricultural community and no vast natural resources or a large industrial base, to support a major part of its economy. Alberta is in a very fortunate position, which we all recognize and approve of, but it makes it more difficult for a province like Manitoba to compete because it does not have the resources or the very large industrial bases such as there are in Ontario.
We should be able to receive leadership from the federal government. However, we have not seen any yet. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will tell us how he approached the provinces in 1977 with a program which he was willing to implement.


Eugene Whelan: We gave them a program.


Charles James Mayer: I do not know what it could have been, because at that time I was involved with the Cattlemen's Association in Manitoba and, to my knowledge, the industry which would have been affected by that program was not consulted in its development.


Eugene Whelan: They all had it for discussion.


Charles James Mayer: The minister says they all had it for discussion. His idea of a discussion is to present a plan which has already been developed and ask the industry if they want to discuss it before it is made official. Discussions should take place before the program is finalized because there are many concerned and capable individuals involved with the cattle industry. If the minister wishes to have a successful program, he should first talk to the industry to get their opinion on what would be best for all concerned.
The government's idea of consultation is to talk about a program a few minutes before its announcement is made to the press.


An hon. Member:: When the decision is already made.
December 11, 1981


Charles James Mayer: That is exactly right, the decision is already made. 1 cannot see any industry having any faith in a program in which they could not contribute to its formulation.
The minister has talked about a supply management system for beef. I suggest that he knows he would find it impossible to get that accepted by cabinet and Treasury Board. If he were seriously concerned about the beef industry, it would not be beef producers who would give him opposition, it is his own cabinet. He has to convince his government of the financial needs of the industry. I believe the industry realizes the amount of money needed in a commitment from the federal treasury. If the minister could win that concession, we in the cattle industry will support him.


Eugene Whelan: If we run it right, we do not need money.


Charles James Mayer: The minister says that if he runs it right he does not need dollars. The Canadian dairy industry receives a subsidy of over $3 billion a year from the federal government. I believe that the beef industry in Canada is much more important with respect to the money it generates in the Canadian agricultural economy. I do not know what kind of program the minister has in mind, if he thinks he can run it without money. The plan that he referred to the other night-


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. member that we have very effective supply management and planned production systems in place in Canada which have not received one red cent since their inception. I do not think they should be grouped together.


Eugene Whelan: Now we have got that straight.


Charles James Mayer: In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we in this party are supportive of the principles of this bill. I have tried to point out some of the reservations we have about the effectiveness of the bill as opposed to the protection which could have been provided to the Canadian beef industry if the legislation had been in place five or seven years ago. I understand that there will be a renegotiation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1982, at which time Canada may be able to negotiate a reduced guaranteed minimum access, which could have happened if proper representations were made on behalf of the industry during the last round of negotiations. I would urge the minister to do his utmost-and he will receive much support if he cares to solicit it-to see that we have a better guaranteed minimum access level relative to what the Americans have to enable the formula which we will approve in this bill to have a better chance of functioning. If this can take place, he will receive support from the industry and at the same time be doing a service to it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ACT
Eugene Whelan: That Bill C-45, an act to amend the Pest Control Products Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will not have too much time, but I want to make sure that all members of the House are well aware of the very important role that pesticides have played and still play in the development of this country. They are used widely and effectively in the forest industry and the agricultural industry. They have made life easier for the home gardener and have saved millions of dollars in the control of insect pests and the removal of weeds along public highways, railways and energy corridors.
At the same time, I am also sure that all members of the House are well aware of the growing public concern that chemical pesticides be used properly and be subject to adequate controls.
It has always been the intent of this government, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the public is fully protected, and for that reason, the Pest Control Products Act was passed to provide my department with the authority to regulate all pesticide products used in Canada.
The amendments now before the House in Bill C-45 represent a reinforcement of those powers in respect of jurisdiction over other government agencies. The amendments are regarded by all those concerned as necessary to clearly define appropriate powers of the federal government over all pesticide matters in Canada.
Let me say that, for many years, my department and, indeed, provincial government agencies have operated under the broad legislative umbrella of the Pest Control Products Act. All people involved in using pesticide products in Canada have followed the act.
But it has been determined by the courts that, in fact, because of the terms and conditions of the act, there were areas of government that were not specifically tied to the Pest Control Products Act. In other words, they were not obliged to operate within its regulations.
Officials of my department have fully discussed the matter with provincial officials and those of other government agencies, and there is complete agreement that the Pest Control Products Act should apply to all those using pesticide products in Canada.
As a result, the amendments are before the House. In essence, they provide a legal basis for jurisdiction that had, until now, been assumed and accepted.

December 11, 1981
Narcotics
I would also like to draw hon. member's attention to the continuing efforts of researchers in my department to find alternatives to chemicals in the control of pests. They are having remarkable success, both in the discovery of biological controls and in breeding plants that are free of disease and pest resistant.
We will probably never see the day when chemical pesticides will not be necessary, but by using them judiciously as part of an integrated pest management program, the volume of chemicals can be substantially reduced and effective control of pests maintained.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 4 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.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should reconsider its plan announced in the Speech from the Throne to move cannabis offences to the Food and Drugs Act and to remove the possibility of imprisonment for simple possession and should consider the advisability of leaving cannabis offences as they are in the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I submitted this motion to the House because, as a concerned Canadian and a father of three teenagers, I was extremely distressed when the government proposed to move marijuana related offences from the Narcotic Control Act to the Food and Drugs Act. Such a move would remove the possibility of imprisonment for simple possession, and the act of possessing marijuana would be changed from a crime to a simple misdemeanour. While the act of smoking marijuana would not be entirely legalized, most people would interpret that to be the case. That is a concern of mine, and there would be grave consequences.
Because of my long involvement with young people and my deep and abiding concern for their wellbeing, I feel very strongly about any move toward leniency in the law where marijuana and other such drugs are concerned. There is a developing trend of evidence pointing to the harmful effects of marijuana. Unfortunately, many-and I could go as far as to say most-people are not aware of this new evidence. How many hon. members are aware of the current medical opinion on marijuana? I venture to say there are only a few. The general public and many parliamentarians have been isolated from these developments. Back in 1972 the LeDain commission of inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs concluded:
The short-term physical effects of cannabis are relatively insignificant on normal persons, and there is as yet no evidence of serious long-term physical effects from use at current levels of consumption in North America.
That was back in 1972. It is indeed unfortunate that many hon. members still refer to the LeDain report as conclusive evidence of the harmlessness of marijuana. Much of what was said in the sixties and early seventies about the harmlessness of marijuana is obsolete and proved untrue. Over the past nine years medical opinion that marijuana "is a harmless substance" or "may be harmfull" has been increasingly altered in favour of the opinion that "marijuana is harmfull". There have been significant changes in the position of the scientific community. Many prominent authorities on the subject who in the sixties and early seventies deemed marijuana harmless are now admitting how wrong they were. I quote Dr. Powelson, who said in 1967:
Marijuana is harmless. There is no evidence that it does anything except make people feel good. It has never made anyone into a criminal or a narcotics addict. It should be legalized.
That was back in 1967. In 1974 Dr. Powelson admitted:
Within five years I knew I was totally wrong ... Medical research groups, after a generation of neglect, began to attribute long-range ill effects to the use of pot. As a result of these findings and my own, I now believe that marijuana is the most dangerous drug we have to contend with today.
This change of opinion throughout the scientific community came about because it has taken time for scientists to complete studies and draw conclusions on the effects of marijuana. It is important to keep in mind, and most pharmacologists agree, that a drug must be presumed harmful until proved otherwise.
I would like to inform the House of what doctors and scientists are telling us today about the damaging effects of marijuana. Cannabis is not a simple drug. The marijuana plant contains many drugs, some of which affect the mind, others which affect the body. THC is the principal psychoactive factor in cannabis responsible for intoxication, although there are at least fifty identifiable, chemically active substances present. As THC and other cannabinoid substances are highly soluble in fat, they tend to accumulate in the brain and gonads and other fatty tissues, and can be expected to persist in the body for a considerable period of time and to accumulate with repeated exposure. THC is removed slowly from the body, and many months are required to recover from its effects. The marijuana user is under the influence of the drug even between highs.
Scientists confirm that cannabis has a number of short-term effects on the brain. There is also significant evidence that continuation over a period of time can produce organic damage to the tissues of the brain, possibly of a permanent nature. Cannabis preparations get in and directly affect brain functions and produce distinctive and irreversible changes. In studies done in England it was found that chronic marijuana smokers aged 18 to 26 had suffered as much brain atrophy as normally encountered in very elderly people. Severe personality changes, memory loss of recent events, hallucinations, and other mental effects were displayed. It was concluded that "regular use of cannabis produces cerebral atrophy in young
December 11, 1981

adults." Anything that adversely affects the brain should not be taken lightly.
Recent findings demonstrate that cannabis inhalation has severely damaging effects on human lung tissue. Chronic cannabis smoking can produce a variety of respiratory difficulties in a year or less, as opposed to ten or twenty years of cigarette smoking. Cannabis smoke is far more damaging to lung tissue than tobacco smoke and renders the lungs more susceptible to infection. Cellular changes in the lung tissue caused by marijuana smoking have been described as "precancerous", indicating that long-term inhalation of marijuana smoke may either directly evoke lung cancer or may at least contribute to the development of lung cancer. Dr. Carol Smith of the Uniform Services University of the Health Services Studies has recently released startling evidence which indicates that chronic use of marijuana may cause disruption of the female menstrual cycle to the point of causing infertility. This is the result of THC interfering with the production of essential hormones.
Other studies by Dr. Ethel Sassenrath of the University of California indicate that the marijuana by-product THC in the bodies of pregnant women is the cause of a much higher incidence of stillbirths and spontaneous abortions. Other recent studies have clearly established that male fertility is also upset by the use of the drug. Users often experience a higher than normal incidence of abnormal sperm, which often is accompanied by reduction in sperm produced. This greatly increased the chance of being temporarily sterile.
The brain, reproductive process and the lungs are not the only body organs and functions that marijuana affects. Medical evidence points to damage to the entire cellular process, chromosome and genetic damage and mutation and suppression of the immune system owing to the use of cannabis. It has also been firmly established that tolerance to cannabis develops, providing a psychological basis for the necessity of the heavy chronic smoker to increase dosage, or to use more potent psychoactive drugs. While marijuana is not physically addictive, there develops a more subtle but no less real psychological dependence that is a formidable obstacle to discontinuance of its use.
So although we may believe that occasional smoking of marijuana is harmless in that we will not become addicted, it is very important to remember that cannabis is a habit-forming substance capable of producing dependence of a pyschological nature.
One person who knows better than any of us the effects of marijuana is Dr. Ingrid L. Lantner of the Erinside Clinic in Willoughby, Ohio. She recently wrote that, in her observation as someone who regularly treats users:
Marijuana is one of the most deteriorating drugs that youth and society has been exposed to!
She explains that few of us or the users recognize the long range consequences. Individuals with symptoms such as fatigue, lack of motivation, depression, paranoia, changed
Narcotics
sexual attitudes and forgetfulness do not realize the cause until after they are totally marijuana-free and have regained their original functions. It is becoming clear that easy accessibility of marijuana is rapidly increasing the number of individuals who have difficulty in leading meaningful, happy and healthy lives. Dr. Lantner concludes:
If we do not do everything possible to prevent its acceptance as a recreational drug, we should stop worrying about the health of our nations in general. Legalization of marijuana will certainly create the impression that this drug is not bad.
I am sure that many hon. members have seen for themselves those who have been smoking up and noted the mindless stupor in which those under the influence seem to exist. Studies have shown that those who smoke marijuana reflect an amotivational syndrome, a massive, chronic passivity, and experience symptoms such as mental confusion, inability to concentrate, diminished attention span, loss of will power, difficulties with concept formation and recent memory, serious loss of motivation, paranoid suspiciouness of others, especially young people of their parents, regression to a more infantile state, distortion of perception and reality, a tendency toward magical thinking, emotional disorders, and I could go on and on. It is quite a list. Is this what we want for our children? I certainly hope not.
As marijuana becomes more common in our society, so does driving under its influence. Millions of people in North America use it and drive every day. Although the scientific community does not know exactly how or to what extent marijuana affects one's driving ability, there is proof that it is dangerous to operate a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana. A Massachusetts study found that 16 per cent of drivers responsible for fatal accidents were stoned on marijuana at the time of the accident. Our unavoidable conclusion must be that doping and driving do not mix.
There is ample evidence that Canadian youth as a collective group are facing unparalleled challenges in the coming decades. We know that any organism is more susceptible to harm when it is growing, and yet efforts to reduce cannabis use by adolescents are minimal and inadequate. Do we want to add to the confusion faced by Canada's young people by changing a law and in the eyes of the young people condoning drug use?
By relaxation of the law, the government is giving the impression that it no longer considers the issue as serious. The interpretation of this by the youth is that marijuana is okay. While the act of smoking marijuana would not be entirely legalized, the vast majority of people would interpret it to be. That is what the problem is. It is a great risk.
If the present trends continue, if adolescent marijuana use increases at its present rate, our society is on its way to acquiring an unmanageable number of emotionally and intellectually handicapped individuals. Regular and daily use of marijuana is not uncommon among the young people of this country. Surveys of high school students have shown rises in direct cannabis experience to the point where by 1979, nearly half the graduates had tried the drug.
14000

December 11, 1981
Narcotics
A 1978 study by the British Columbia Alcohol and Drug Commission indicated that 47 per cent of 28,000 high school students in Vancouver have used cannabis. Nearly 21 per cent of the students tested indicated cannabis use at least seven or more times in the preceding six months. In Toronto, the most recent survey of the Ontario Addiction Research Foundation found that marijuana had edged out tobacco as the second most popular drug among senior male high school students.
Another 1978 Ontario survey showed that 41 per cent of men between 18 and 20 had smoked marijuana in the previous 12 months. Not a pretty picture, is it? The experience of our American neighbours indicates decriminalization will greatly increase those numbers. There is ample evidence that wherever marijuana has been decriminalized, use and abuse as well as trafficking have drastically increased. Teenage use of marijuana has risen in both Canada and the United States since 1970, but the growth has been higher in those states which have decriminalized marijuana.
In Oregon, the first American state to decriminalize marijuana, a study revealed an increase of 35 per cent in the use in the 18 to 29-year age group from 1974 to 1976. An Oregon police chief suggested why this should not be surprising, in these words:
Adoption of liberalized marijuana laws provides a societal imprimatur that removes the onus from the user and signifies societal acceptance of the practice.
Decriminalization in the state of Maine has demonstrated the dangers of creating the impression among users and potential users that the drug is harmless. The chairman of the Chiefs of Police Association in that state reported in his own community there was a 40 per cent increase in the number of seizures following decriminalization. Alaska and California also report sharp increases in use and trafficking following changes in the law. Is this what we want for our country? This prospect of increased cannabis use must force us also to face up to evidence that heavy users are likely to go on to the use of even more dangerous drugs. Mr. William Pollin of the National Institute on Drug Abuse through studies has concluded that:
-a significant causal relationship exists between the use of marijuana and the use of other drugs.
He found a staggering 73 per cent of heavy users went on to use harder drugs. He also found that people who use marijuana had a thousand times greater chance of going on to heavier drugs than people who did not smoke marijuana.
A front page article in last Wednesday's Globe and Mail revealed that the use of LSD among Ontario high school students rose 67 per in the last four years. In light of Mr. Pollin's conclusions, this House must recognize that the outbreak of this mind-bending drug is largely the result of the casual acceptance and use of marijuana by our youth. Without a doubt, decriminalization will not just lead to higher marijuana acceptance but will unleash a drug abuse problem more severe than we have ever known.
One argument for decriminalization is that people should not be given a criminal record for simple possession. However, to decriminalize marijuana in order to solve this problem would be a drastic overreaction. Decriminalization is not
necessary. Under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of July 15, 1972, it is possible for judges, instead of convicting an accused person, to direct that he or she be discharged absolutely or placed under conditions of probation.
An individual receiving this kind of discharge is not considered to have been convicted of a criminal offence. As well, under the Criminal Records Act anyone convicted of offences concerning cannabis is already eligible for pardon after appropriate periods of good behaviour.
The existence of this legislation allows a judge to use his discretion with a first-time offender. Unfortunately, it is not being consistently applied across the country. In my home province of P.E.I., a first-time offender has a 74 per cent chance of receiving a pardon, while the same offender in Alberta has only a 2.5 per chance of being excused.
Judges who refuse to grant the pardon usually cite the current medical and psychological evidence which I have presented as the reason why they feel bound to impress on young offenders the seriousness of their offence.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has expressed concern that new legislation is needed in part to act as a guideline for judges and to relieve the heavy burden on the courts which marijuana prosecutions impose. I agree with both of these goals but I must impress upon the House that decriminalization is far too high a price for our young people to pay. The Prince Edward Island Citizens' Council on Drug abuse has made an excellent proposal which will solve these problems and in effect decrease the use of marijuana. This alternative to decriminalization will not saddle the naive user with a record, but it will greatly decrease the number of court appearances, without removing legal sanctions against marijuana use. The change will involve an amendment to the Narcotic Control Act which will give those charged for the first time with possession the option of pleading guilty without going to court. They will, in return receive a full pardon, after completing an in-depth educational program dealing with the medical and psychological effects of marijuana use.
I recognize that not all users will respond to this program. Those charged a second time clearly have developed a habit that is already inflicting its damage. The judges must have the continued authority to use the full measures of the present law to impress on the offender the seriousness of the offence.
I believe so strongly in this proposal that I will soon be presenting it in the form of a private member's bill. It will reflect my belief that the majority of our young people are smart enough, when given the facts, to recognize the dangers of marijuana. But first, the government must acknowledge the dangers and then, respond to it in a reasonable manner. Decriminalization is not a responsible act; it will only shift the responsibility for marijuana misuse off to the pushers and the drug dealers.
I believe that reform of marijuana's legal status at this time will prove detrimental to the youth and society of this country, Mr. Speaker and hon. members. Extreme caution should be

taken when contemplating legislative changes which could have far-reaching effects on our society in general and on our youth in particular. We must educate ourselves and our youth to recognize the hazards involved in cannabis use. This should be the priority, and not the moving of cannabis offences from the Narcotic Control Act to the Food and Drugs Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. However, he may continue with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I thank hon. members. I appreciate the extra time that I have been given. I have been working on this for one year and I am finally having my day in the House.
Before Parliament proceeds to pass a bill decriminalizing the possession of marijuana, let us at least understand and discuss the issues. Let us ask ourselves if we have enough facts to justify such a far-reaching move at this time. Let us understand all the issues before the decriminalization of marijuana gets carved in tablets of stone. If the present trend to drug abuse continues, we will soon acquire, as I mentioned earlier, an unmanageable number of emotionally, intellectually and socially handicapped young people who are unable to function effectively, if at all, in an increasingly complex and demanding world.
I should like to quote Doctor George K. Russell. It was from his excellent book entitled "Marijuana Today" that I have gleaned much of the evidence that I have presented to the House today. I do hope it will give hon. members on all sides of the House food for thought in the consideration of this motion. Doctor Russell writes:
Can the use of marijuana, in any amount, ever be reconciled with the clarity of thought, the personal integrity, and the strength of will, that an individual must have, who would play an active role in helping humanity find the way out of its presently severe and ever-worsening difficulties?
I will conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by saying that, considering the growing volumes of evidence that we have which tells us that marijuana is a harmful drug, if the government is considering decriminalization and it continues to push ahead with its intent to decriminalize, then I say it is wrong. If it were to do any good, Mr. Speaker, I would get down on both my knees in the House and beg and plead with the members opposite to reconsider.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply on behalf of the NDP to this motion today. I note that we have been debating agriculture for part of the afternoon. I suppose it is proper that we move from soil to grass. As a matter of fact, hemp-and the Chair will pardon me for that-was part of the agricultural sector of this country for many years before Canada became an industrialized country, for the making of ropes and so on. As a matter of fact, it is true that the government subsidized it for many years. No doubt in this very House of Commons at some point in history
Narcotics
they debated subsidization of hemp, much as we did subsidization of meat and lamb this afternoon. No doubt this country is capable of growing a lot of hemp and a lot of marijuana, if it so wanted. I suppose the question is, what do we want to do about this?
I agree with the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) that it is a very important issue. I listened very closely to what the hon. member had to say. He spent quite some time on his speech. I was very interested in what the hon. member had to say. However, in noting that he dealt with the medical evidence and the evidence that he cited, I might tell the hon. member that I was a member of the alcohol and drug commission of the Province of British Columbia for a short period, and I also practised criminal law in the courts of British Columbia for about ten years and dealt with a number of cases of drugs of all sorts. The evidence he cited really deals with the crime of chronic use. I agree with the hon. member that chronic use of almost anything would bring one to a mindless stupor. When the member talked about mindless stupors, diminishing values, suspicion of others and emotional disorders, I thought he was talking about question period in the House of Commons. The hon. member is right in a sense that any chronic abuse obviously creates problems. It is the same for alcohol and tobacco. One can see that around us. One does not need to be a scientist to report that.
As a matter of fact, the problem that we have is that the medical evidence on marijuana is only suggestive and not conclusive. I think it stops far short of proving that heavy, regular use of marijuana may produce lung or heart disease, slow down or halt one's sex life, cause long lasting disturbances of behaviour and brain function, or lower one's resistance to infection.
An authoritative statement from the Addiction Research Foundation points out:
"what is not yet known is the frequency with which these health problems occur among cannabis users, the degree of use needed to produce them, and the percentage of users at risk ... it is probable that any specific health problem due to cannabis will have a low incidence ...
A Gallup poll indicated that about 15 per cent of the Canadian population that is between 2.5 and 2.7 million people, have tried marijuana, and that among younger people between the ages of 18 to 24 the figure is over 25 per cent. Not being a scientist but based on common sense, that would indicate to me that if that many people had used marijuana for a period of time, we would in fact have a lot greater incidence of disease and ill-health than we have, if it caused all the things that the hon. member said it caused. It indicates to me that chronic users may have problems, but occasional users may not have those medical problems.
The hon. member spoke about young people. The problem we have with young people is that they believe what I have just said a minute ago. They think we are trying to scare them. They do not think we are being straightforward with them. I do not think we are either.
I agree with the hon. member that we must find ways to have better drug education programs and alcohol education

December 11, 1981
Narcotics
programs-that is the biggest drug abuse; but we should also have some way of dealing with our law in a just manner. It has been eight long years in the making, but it appears that the federal government is about to change the present law. This fulfils the promise of 1972, although I am not sure. I looked through some clippings and I noticed some of the headlines were "Ottawa to Ease Marijuana Law within Weeks", in quoting the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) on June 12, 1980. Other clippings in the past eight years have read pretty much the same way.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). I know it is only common courtesy for an hon. member who speaks on a motion to remain and listen to the comments of other hon. members following him. I should certainly like to listen to everything the hon. member has to say, but I have an airplane to catch. I beg the indulgence of the House if I were to leave.


Marcel Prud'homme: If everyone were as courteous as the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass), it would be easy.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I agree with the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) but before the hon. member leaves I want to point out just one matter. The fact is that the motion is wrong; I have checked it out. Despite perhaps what the Library told him, the present law is not in the Criminal Code; it is in the Narcotic Control Act. This is Martin's Criminal Code. I will pass it along to the hon. member so that he can look at it. The government appears to be saying that it should be taken out of the Narcotic Control Act and put into the Food and Drugs Act. It has never been in the Criminal Code, but we can argue about it later.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Your point is well taken.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I should like to deal with some of the arguments of the hon. member which are pertinent to the debate. We must ask ourselves whether the state should enforce standards of public taste and common morality. I think that is the first question. It is a difficult one, but I think we decided it in 1968 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the then minister of justice, brought in amendments to the Criminal Code. He talked about the state not having a place in the bedrooms of the nation and so on. It is a debate among criminal lawyers and criminologists. It is Professor Hart on the one side saying that the state has no business; it is to force legality, not morality. It is Sir Patrick Devlin on the other side saying that the state must force morality in order to enforce legality. My view of what has happened in the law in the last 20 years is that the state's business is not to enforce private morality. For example, alcohol is bad but we do not prohibit alcohol; tobacco smoke is bad but we do not prohibit someone from smoking tobacco. Perhaps we do in certain places, but generally we leave it up to a personal choice. Perhaps this is where we should go on the marijuana aspect, providing that it is not hurting other people and that people are not making black market money on it, which, of course, means traffickers.
The second question which we must ask ourselves is whether the classification of cannabis in the Narcotic Control Act is justified. Critics argue that this classification is too strict because cannabis is put in the same legal regime as heroin, cocaine, opium and morphine and it does not have the same properties and same addictive capacities as those drugs. The penalties under the present act are considered too high. For example, seven years' imprisonment maximum for possession, seven years minimum for importing and trafficking, and no discharge or summary conviction for trafficking offences.
Cannabis was added to the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act in 1923, not because of any knowledge of the extent of its use or scientific evidence of harm, but probably on the basis of a book entitled, "The Black Candle" written by a juvenile court judge which included many sensational and irresponsible statements. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Malpeque tried to marshal his evidence today with no irresponsible statements, but this has been done too much in the past. There may be arguments that cannabis should not be put in the Narcotic Control Act.
The next question is: How effective is the law right now? We are told that there have been a number of convictions and that they are rising. In 1976, there were 34,000 convictions for simple possession; in 1977, there were approximately 33,000 convictions; in 1978, there were 27,000; in 1979, 27,000. I do not have the figures for 1980, but I suspect they will be substantial. All convictions are registered in criminal records. It is said that there are some 300,000 Canadians who now have criminal records for no other offence than simple possession. One with a drug conviction for possession of even a small amount of marijuana cannot cross the American border. Certainly it has some effect upon these people. In the last year which I cited, 16,970 of those persons convicted were fined; 8,076 were given conditional or absolute discharges; 1,130 were sent to jail, of whom 1,095 were sentenced to less than six months and the remaining convictions resulted in probationary or suspended sentences.
When I was a lawyer in Vancouver I can remember appearing before a judge about five years ago in provincial court. My client had been charged with simple possession. I had been around the courts, I knew the courts. I knew something was wrong; I was about to plead my client guilty, but I let a less experienced lawyer go ahead of me. He pleaded his client guilty. Sure enough, something was bothering the magistrate that day and he gave a 17-year-old young man who had never been in court before, seven days in jail, because he was going to stamp out marijuana. I have heard courts indicate this. For example, I heard the British Columbia Court of Appeal indicate that it would stamp out marijuana in a case which I took before the court. The fact is that they have not stamped it out.
I tend to favour what the hon. member for Malpeque said that there should be more emphasis on educational programs. How effective is the law? The answer to the question is, not very effective. Not only that, it is a discriminatory law.
Tonight there will be parties in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and in other big cities. There will be alcohol and
December 11, 1981

there will be marijuana smoked at those parties. If those people are good citizens in the middle-class and in the upper middle-class, the police will not come to their doors. It will be tolerated by their friends in high places in all walks of life. But who will be arrested tonight? It will be the youth with marijuana in his car. It will be younger people, people who are less able to be protected. It is hypocritical; let us face it, it is a hypocritical law. It comes down hard on a certain segment of our population, but if it came down hard on older or middle-aged people, we would change it pretty quickly. The youth know that the law is harsher on them, they know that they are being discriminated against generally as a group.
The next question is whether cannabis damages health. I personally think drugs damage health, as do alcohol and cigarettes, but the evidence shows that it must be dealt with in chronic proportions. What is the extent of the use of drugs now? I think it is fairly widespread. I cited the Gallup poll earlier. It actually indicated that 46.2 per cent of people between the ages of 18 and 29 have used marijuana. This is a sizeable proportion of our population. By all rights, if we do not change the law and it is illegal, we should seek them out, prosecute them, put them on probation, fine them or put them in jail. This does not make much sense. It seems to me that we are back to the old arguments with respect to alcohol and prohibition.
The final question which should be raised is whether decriminalization will lead to increased use of drugs. It is an important question. It seems to me that the evidence is that the number of cannabis users who progress to harder drugs is only a small proportion of the total number of cannabis users. Moreover, the prohibition against cannabis encourages the progression factor because it requires people to contact traffickers who deal in a variety of drugs. I have defended probably 400 to 500 cases of possession of marijuana. I used to know what happened to some of my clients in later years; I would follow them up. They never progressed to harder drugs. I knew many heroin addicts with whom I dealt. I have talked to them; they came into heroin for various reasons.
In conclusion I want to say that I agree with the hon. member for Malpeque that young people are not stupid. They understand. They know what is going on. They have friends who smoke marijuana and they have friends who abuse marijuana. I agree that when there is abuse at school or at work, disciplinary action must be taken, but I question the effectiveness of the present laws regarding marijuana. It is perhaps a fact that the bad effects of the drug outweigh the good, and the hon. member for Malpeque suggested a number of ways by which we might reduce the problem of drug use.
I think it is plain that minor violations of the law relating to cannabis should no longer carry a criminal stigma or the onerous penalties that currently apply. Nothing less than the minimum concessions proposed by the government should be considered-that is if they are not just idle election promises made to appeal to a certain section of the population, while the
Narcotics
government at the same time refuses to deal with the other section of the population that does not like them. If the proposals for these concessions reach this House, I think they should be welcomed, they should be supported and they should be swiftly passed into law.
Make no mistake; this would not make the use of marijuana respectable. As I understand it, it would only deal with a small amount of marijuana and would eliminate criminal records. That seems to me to make sense.
I smiled when the hon. member for Malpeque quoted some authorities on drug abuse among young people. I began a paper I once wrote on international narcotics control with a quote from an official who said, "The trouble today is that young people abuse drugs; they do not respect their elders and they are not the way they used to be." Mr. Speaker, that was said in 1969, so things have not changed much-the older generation still thinks that the younger generation is irresponsible and that it abuses its health and so on.
I think we have to try to approach the question of marijuana rationally, Mr. Speaker, but we have to approach it. We should welcome a bill that would take at least the minimal step of decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana. To do less would be hypocritical, and I think our young people know that. We should then say to our young people that abuse of the body, of the self or of the mind is wrong, and we should show them that it is wrong. It seems to me that if we did this, we would have more credibility in their eyes.
My predecessor in Vancouver-Kingsway once made a speech about marijuana which was circulated. It was to the effect that marijuana was the devil's drug, and so on. I watched the reaction of the young people closely. They laughed at it, Mr. Speaker. I do not want them to laugh at the suggestion of the hon. member for Malpeque, and in fact I do not think they will because he put his positions forward very solidly-although I disagree with some of them. I think we both seek the same end, that is, that our young people be healthy individuals who can make a good contribution to society. Still, there are some healthy individuals who are good contributors to our society who have also used marijuana. It does not seem to have affected them particularly, and the young people know that. I think we must make a big effort to establish some educational programs in this regard.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must decide what we consider to be the morality of the nation from the particular laws of the nation. I think we have already taken that decision and if we have, we should not have any problem in dealing logically with the government's long awaited reform of the laws that relate to cannabis in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) is not in the House as I should like to commend him on the research he has done into the topic now before the House. I agree with many of the things he said. What is perhaps the other extreme

December 11, 1981
Narcotics
was evident in some of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who seemed to lean too far the other way. Perhaps that is typical of members on that side of the House.
As the father of four children, three of whom are now beyond their teen years, I have been very concerned about this subject. As head of the family, I have wondered what I would do if one of my children became involved with drugs. I was always proud of my children's scholastic standing, and of their abilty to participate in team sports. When they were at the age where they could become involved in active sports programs, we left the decision up to them. When they decided to participate, we accompanied them to the games so that in fact they were not participating as individuals but the whole family was participating. Sometimes it meant that we had to quit work in the middle of the afternoon in order to go with them, but we did this to show that we were interested in the development of their skills and physical co-ordination. That gave them the encouragement that is so important to any young person involved in sports, whether it be minor baseball or minor hockey.
Over a period of years it was very interesting to notice how they developed even when they were playing atom hockey in the International Silver Stick competition. A group of small town kids won the North American championship two years in a row. This was not only due to their dedication but to that of their parents and the all-round extra effort and team work involved. These kids were not selected from a group of hockey teams to make up a star team. They belonged to a team that played together and developed the co-ordination and team spirit that enabled them to achieve that level. Whether it was in the softball season or the fastball season when they went on to the Ontario playdowns and championships, that keenness of mind and keenness of reflex that is so important to any championship team was always present.
As these children got older, every once in a while I would notice that one was dropping back, not performing as he should. Pretty soon it would be heard that he was doing something that he should not be doing and the standard of excellence was not maintained at the level of the other children who were not experimenting.
I also witnessed the development of these students in schools over many years. In some cases they could not cope and decided to drop out even though they had been top students in the final years of their elementary school and their families had been proud of the way they excelled in their studies as well as in their athletic accomplisments.
It was a terrible schock to me when, in early 1980, I was invited to an elementary school meeting in my constituency which was called by the parents because it was discovered that quite a number of students in grades six and seven were users of the drug cannabis and that someone was pushing that drug at that level. It was a shocking experience to see what had
happened there and how it had wrecked the lives of these young people.
It may be argued by those same young people that alcohol has its ill effects too. However, we must remember that when alcohol is consumed, it is excreted from the body within a matter of hours, whereas cannabis is retained within the system in the fatty tissues of the body. Its effects may turn up several days later in various symptoms usually associated with the judgment and functioning of the mind. I believe that if we looked for examples and statistics, some of which I have heard from those in the medical profession concerning the number of highway traffic accidents which are not related to alcohol but which are related to the use of cannabis or the accumulation of the residue of cannabis in the fatty tissues of the body, we would find them rather shocking.
Certainly, I am not one who believes that this drug should be allowed or made available to young people of our community or to the upper or middle-class, as mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I normally go home to my family every weekend. I do not get to attend these parties in the capital of Canada on a Friday night.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Neither do I.


Ralph Ferguson: I have to go back to my constituents to keep in touch so that I know what is happening in the outside world. However, it would be interesting to know how many convictions there would have been made under the highway traffic act if it could be implicitly proven that many of these accidents were caused by the use of this drug. Even if used several days before, the accumulation of this drug in the body could impair the judgment of a person behind the wheel of an automobile. Certainly, we must admit that although alcohol does not stay in the body for the same extended period of time as the residue of cannabis, alcohol has ill effects if used to excess and can perhaps become just as habit forming. However, I believe that now is not the time to be looking for trends which may open up the accessibility to this drug.
I am somewhat sorry that the hon. member for Malpeque moved his motion in the manner in which he did. I would rather that it had been made very distinctly clear that it should be left under the Narcotics Control Act and, in so doing, ease the level of penalty for a first offence. However, from that time on, it should be made known that if a person is convicted a second time, he can no longer have that criminal record erased, and he cannot go on in society with the profession of his choice. I do not like to think that this might happen to a promising young accountant who must be bonded and cannot have a criminal record. Too many have made a mistake once and have been caught in a situation where they have had to carry criminal records for the rest of their lives. However, they should be given a second chance and some leniency.
It has been nearly ten years since the report of the LeDain Commission. Since that time, we have made tremendous advances as far as plant life is concerned. The yields of wheat have dramatically increased. The yields of other plants such as grains, corn or beans have dramatically increased. In some
December 11, 1981

cases, the protein levels have increased. However, in the same time period, the potency of this drug has also increased by as much as tenfold over what it was at the time of the LeDain Commission report. Therefore, we cannot just go ahead in a hodgepodge situation without some in-depth study. I suspect it is likely that members of the medical profession who belong to this chamber here, one of whom is sitting across the way from me today, will concur with me when I point out that the effects today are far different from what they were ten years ago. This is what scares me, not only as head of a family, but also as the father of children who, thank God, have not become involved in some of these things but have burned off their excess energy through athletics.
I feel that we must reassess the whole situation concerning any changes in this legislation. I hope that when those changes come, we will bear in mind that a young person should not have to carry the burden of his first mistake for the rest of his life. However, we should let that person know what the consequences will be if caught a second time or caught trafficking. I think this is the only way to go. It should be left under the Narcotics Control Act, but the penalty for that first offence must be re-examined. Then, if no further offences occur after a specified period of time, the criminal record should be erased and that person permitted to take his place in the profession of his choice without that cloud or criminal record hanging over his head.
I feel very strongly about this matter. I hope that other responsible hon. members on all sides of this House of Com-
Narcotics
mons and other parents in this chamber will take a very long look at this situation to ensure that we do not develop a society of young people who grow up under the influence of this drug. It affects not only the living, but also the unborn for years to come.
It is with this thought in mind that I say it is of the utmost importance that the House take a long, hard look at any changes taking place here. If necessary, we should perhaps establish a committee to look into the possibility of holding hearings across this country in a selected number of communities to reassess what has happened. We should find out whether the use has been increased. There should be a thorough check and examination of what has been happening through our medical profession and the autopsies which are performed on many accident victims. It is imperative that somewhere along the line we do much more research and obtain more information than that which became available to us through the LeDain Commission. The commission certainly did the very best it could with the information available at that time; but since that time there have been many additional improvements.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired. [Translation]
It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1), this House now stands adjourned until Monday, December 14, at two o'clock.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 14, 1981