1981-07-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise concerning the disgraceful, Machiavellian manoeuvring of politics and Parliament crassly committed yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) through the elevation of the Senate of his canoeing pal from Spadina in an attempt to prepare a path to this House for Toronto's little cherub, James Coutts, first of the flunkies to precede the Prime Minister's own delayed departure. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House condemns the shameless playing with power for political purposes by the Prime Minister, his abusive actions of snickering at the Senate while filling it with friends, flunkies and worn-out sacred cows of the Liberal party and making a mockery of our political system for his own autocratic ends and, finally, requests the Prime Minister to advise us immediately when the next exodus is to be made by Michael Pitfield to the position of Undersecretary of State for External Affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
action necessary to end strike-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of importance under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Due to the fact that the nation-wide postal strike, now in its fourth day, is already causing major problems, financial in particular, for thousands of Canadian businessmen and private citizens, and because the Canadian Union of Postal Workers' authority to call a strike was apparently voted on by less than half the union membership, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the government accept its responsibility to the people of Canada and put an end to the strike, either by appropriate action at the bargaining table or through back to work legislation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Apartment vacancy rates in Canada have shown a steady decline over the last two years. The government has stated that the re-introduction of the MURB program for one year would alleviate the problem. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That the government extend the MURB provisions to at least December 31, 1982, so that builders can properly plan development projects which will ease the vacancy rate problem in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House requests both parties in the current Post Office dispute to accept the conciliation board report as a basis for settlement and return to the bargaining table in an effort to reach an agreement on all other contentious matters.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 3, 1981
5.0.	43


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that it is now 13 months since figures were released by the War Amputations of Canada indicating that almost 50 veterans a year are dying before their pension applications are processed, and in view of the fact that the government has done nothing to speed up the processing of pension applications, which now on average takes three years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That this House instruct the Prime Minister to name a full-time Minister of Veterans Affairs now, and that the newly appointed minister be instructed to retain the Canadian Pension Commission in Ottawa.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of great concern to many Canadians. Considering that the purpose of government policies and agencies is theoretically to assist and not impair Canadians in pursuit of legitimate goals; considering that many small business enterprises, already imperilled by this government's high interest rate policy, are further threatened by the unhappy situation in the government-operated Post Office; and considering that many small business enterprises such as Beaven's Custom Cannery in Summerland, British Columbia, are seasonal enterprises and that any disruption in normal mail communication with customers at this time threatens the entire annual production and profitability, without which the business must fail; I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That immediate steps be taken to get the mails moving again, if necessary through back to work legislation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AVIATION SAFETY
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given that the responsibility to provide adequate financial and human resources to maintain the integrity of Canada's air traffic control system lies with the federal government, and since air traffic control services at the Calgary International Airport will be curtailed between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 a.m. effective July 4 because of insufficient numbers of air traffic controllers, thereby seriously impairing the ability to provide positive separation between aircraft and aircraft and surface vehicles, as well as raising serious questions of legal liability, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That the minister take immediate steps to maintain full 24-hour air traffic control services at Calgary International and that emergency steps be taken to fill the 22 vacant ATC positions in Vancouver, 12 in Calgary, 15 in Edmonton, 58 in Toronto, 50 in Montreal, and 20 in Gander, plus an additional 75 controllers in other points in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The failure of the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Senator Hazen Argue, to announce a new price for wheat leaves the grain farmer in a very uncertain position in regard to delivery. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House call on the minister to fulfil his responsibilities to the farmers and announce a new price immediately so as to give farmers adequate time to make a business-like decision on deliveries of grain.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 3, 1981


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and seconded by my loyal colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), I move:
That this House calls on the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour to inform Canadian National Railways that their treatment of their retired employees and their survivors is unfair and unsatisfactory, that it is not good enough just to make an occasional adjustment for selected groups of pensioners, but that the CNR should institute immediately the automatic and guaranteed escalation, equivalent at least to the rise in the cost of living, of all pensions paid to former employees or to their survivors.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas DREE subsidiary programs with New Brunswick in tourism, highways and industry have lapsed without renewal, and whereas the peak of the short season in outdoor construction and tourism is rapidly approaching I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Minister of DREE and the President of the Treasury Board be directed to renew these programs immediately for one more year during which a thorough evaluation and negotiated renewal or substitution can be effected.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on an important issue. Great Lakes fishermen over the past number of years have seen a decline and in fact near extinction of whitefish, herring and blue pickerel. This year the perch catch has not been spectacular. That, combined with increased costs in equipment, nets, workers and fuel, has put an unacceptable burden on this group of providers. Fuel increases over the past
Oral Questions
year just cannot be offset by increases in fish prices. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That the House direct the government to implement immediately a fuel rebate program for the fishing industry, in order to save this valuable source of food.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance and touches, of course, on the news this morning that our foreign reserves have fallen to the lowest level in ten years. Would the minister indicate to the House why that has occurred and is it in fact government policy to run with such slim reserves backing our dollar? In short, what level do ministers intend to maintain? They are down to almost S3 billion now; is that the level they hope to maintain, or are they content to see reserves slip away to the $2 billion, or $1 billion level, or even less?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I must say I am surprised at the hon. member suggesting the reserves might be at a low level. I regard them as being in a very healthy condition, particularly when one looks at the gold holdings in the amount of $842 million at book value. If they were shown at market value it would increase the reserves to an extraordinary high level.


EFFECT OF ENERGY PRICING DISPUTE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, as I indicated, the reserves are at an historically low level, certainly over the last ten years. In relation to our trade they are at a very, very low percentage of our total activity.
Let me put my second question touching on this matter to the Minister of Finance. Bill Jarvis, an economist with Infor-metrica, stated that investor uncertainty over Canadian policies, especially in energy, is continuing to put our dollar under pressure and that a solution to the energy dispute between Ottawa and Alberta would go a long way toward strengthening the dollar and the reserves. If the government could settle the energy question, is it not true that it would relieve the outgo of Canadian dollars considerably, an outgo on petroleum

July 3, 1981
Oral Questions
products alone which was up 36 per cent in May of this year compared with May, 1980, due largely to the almost ludicrous position taken by the federal government of being willing to buy from a foreigner but not from our provinces such as British Columbia or Alberta?
Hon Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I do not want to be contentious with the hon. member about foreign exchange reserves, but I would suggest that when he compares the reserves of ten years ago he might look at the comparative prices for gold and translate into current market value the reserves of gold which we hold at the present time. But that is by way of suggesting that the hon. member reconsider his point.
With respect to the energy settlement, it is as clear to me, as it is to others, that there would be a number of benefits flowing from an energy settlement including, we would hope, the end of production cutbacks which are putting additional strain on our balance of payments. That in itself would improve the situation.
Furthermore, an energy settlement would remove an uncertainty which presently exists, and that would be helpful. It is for these reasons that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his counterpart in Alberta have been working very constructively in their last meetings in order to reach an energy settlement.


RATE OF INFLATION IN GERMANY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. You will recall that in answer to a question yesterday dealing with high interest rates in this country, higher than any of the other six main industrialized nations, the minister came back with the odd comment that he had found in Germany that interest rates on a real basis were also at the highest level they had ever been in Germany. We must be encouraged that the minister has started to take a look at the economy of Germany. Has he also noticed that since 1973 Germany has run with an inflation level approximately half our inflation level, and an unemployment level approximately half the unemployment level of this country? Does he feel he could perhaps learn from what the Germans have been doing in running their economy, and run a better economy here with lower interest rates and certainly lower inflation?
If the hon. member put some stock in comparing performances among industrialized countries, he ought to be impressed by the fact that job creation in Canada on a year-to-year basis has been the highest of any industrialized country in the world, including Germany. That, to me, is a rather important fact which he is overlooking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing who will know that last year Canada had the lowest number of housing starts in years. He will also know that high mortgage interest rates have severely affected the number of housing starts this year. Builders are reluctant to enter into building programs which would alleviate the low vacancy rates in multiple unit dwellings. Last year at this time the mortgage interest rate was 13 per cent. It is now running at 18.5 per cent. What new action is the government taking to stimulate housing starts in the forthcoming months?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, what the hon. member omitted to tell us in the introduction to his question was that although last year housing starts were at an exceptionally low level, seasonally-adjusted, for example, for the month of June at 125,000, a 15-year low, in the first quarter of this year there was an equally remarkable turn-around resulting in the seasonally adjusted rate for the month of March being somewhere over 242,000 which is a five-year record high for building starts in this country.
I know that most members who watch the industry know that the ups and downs are not really desirable. They certainly do not bring stability to the industry. It is our hope that the strength of the industry which has been demonstrated is one which will continue. It is our observation that the action taken by the Minister of Finance through the reintroduction of MURBs, a provision which was thought unnecessary and was dropped by the government of the hon. member's party when it was in office, is part of the bounce-back of the industry.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has again drawn attention to his conclusion that Canada is running the highest interest rates of any country in the world. If he looked today at the prime rate between Canada and the United States, or compared both rates, he would find that they are about the same. If he looked at the short-term rates, commercial paper in the United States, he would find that in the last week its rates have increased to some extent and that our comparable rates have dropped.


FORECAST OF DECLINE IN HOUSING STARTS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. The minister made reference to the seasonally adjusted starts in the first quarter of this year. Mr. Frank Clayton, a recognized expert in the housing field, has said it is hard to believe responsible government spokespersons have actually taken this position in public. Would the minister not agree that the housing starts which took place in April and May of this year were pre-sales
July 3, 1981

which were made when interest rates were much lower than they are today, and that builders arranged those mortgages when rates were much lower than they are today? Would the minister also not agree with Mr. Clayton's statement that a sharp deterioration in housing starts is unavoidable in the coming months if interest rates continue in the 18.5 per cent bracket?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I would not join in the hon. member's pessimism about the industry. I certainly do not share the pessimistic view he takes from his selective editing of Mr. Clayton's statements. If he goes on and reads Mr. Clayton's statements he will see that he projects starts at somewhere around 180,000 for this year. That number is in line with what CMHC has projected for this year and, in my view, it is a response to the strength and the need demonstrated in the market. I really see no reason for pessimism when the need and the response to it are parallel.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that it is now a year since Parliament passed the bill which added $35 a month to the guaranteed income supplement, and in view of the fact that three months have gone by since the holding of the National Pension Conference, does the minister not agree that it is time she obtained the government's support for some of her commitments to our older people, particularly by bringing in pension improvements and adjustments for women between the ages of 60 and 65, or 55 and 65, especially those who are alone and who, as the minister knows, are in greatest need?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I know, Madam Speaker, that women in particular, and unemployed people between age 50 or 55 to the age of retirement, do face an unwritten discrimination in employment, and do have the greatest difficulties, often having to go from unemployment insurance benefits to welfare. I realize that. However, my commitment which I have given to Canadians is and has always been the same.
I have recognized that were it not for constitutional matters we would not be capable of entering that field in the future in which I will live. That is what I have always acknowledged. I have always asked Canadians to accept that the first target group and the first priority, which is the policy of this government, should be the people over 65 who still lack money in order to be, once and for all, above the poverty line. I have always added that we cannot do that in the immediate future.
Oral Questions
It will be as soon as the economy picks up. That is the commitment I have given to Canadians.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER PRESS FOR ACTION BY GOVERNMENT
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the Minister of National Health and Welfare has paid attention to the statements the Minister of Finance makes day after day about the economy being strong. If there are the billions of dollars of money in this country, should the Minister of National Health and Welfare not make sure that the burden of any financial difficulty the government has is not borne by older people? Does she not believe in some redistribution and some sharing? Should she not be pressing for action now instead of claiming that we cannot improve pensions in a time of restraint?


Monique Bégin: I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a great casuist. I am the victim of that casuistry right now. However, he knows and we on this side all know that as soon as the economy picks up, and I see the colour of the hundreds of millions of dollars that we need, he can be sure that I will be back at the door of the Minister of Finance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S ROLE IN ADVOCATING INCOME TAX REFORMS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, not only has the Minister of National Health and Welfare made the commitments to older people to which she has referred today, but she has been a very strong advocate of serious reform of our income tax laws, bearing in mind that at the present time the government hands out all kinds of subsidies to people who do not need them. What progress is she making in persuading the Minister of Finance to bring in the kind of income tax reforms in which she believes?


Monique Bégin: May I answer that I wish I knew the exact answer to that, in the sense that the hon. member knows very well that the preparation of the budget and the decision-making process regarding budgetary measures, and, of course, income tax changes, belong to the Minister of Finance under our British parliamentary system. I think it is obvious that on this side of the House most people, if not all, have recommended that certain income tax changes could be made which would be more progressive for social justice and equity. However, we all know, and I cannot hide it from Canadians in my answer, that other families who are well off will have to suffer for that in terms of redistribution to those in the lower-income brackets. That is the price to pay. I, personally, like many others on this side, recommend it strongly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The time is now.

July 3, 1981
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


INTRODUCTION OF BACK TO WORK LEGISLATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to statements made this morning in the Montreal Gazette and on "Canada A.M.", quoting unnamed Liberal MPs and a Liberal cabinet minister to the effect that back to work legislation would be introduced to settle the postal strike before Parliament rises for the summer. In light of statements made in the House yesterday by the President of the Treasury Board that such legislation was not contemplated at this time, and the much stronger statement by the Postmaster General that the government was prepared to wait until a settlement of the strike was reached at the bargaining table, through you, Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government has a common policy with respect to back to work legislation. If so, what is it specifically? Do we have one policy being followed by the minister responsible for bargaining, another policy being followed by the minister responsible for the Post Office, and still another being promised and followed by certain other members of cabinet and the Liberal caucus?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I have that quote from the Montreal Gazette that the hon. member refers to, and I see no indication here, but perhaps I have not read it all, that any members of cabinet have taken a contrary view to that of-


Mr. Nielsen:: On "Canada A.M." this morning.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have to listen to that too.


Erik Nielsen: Believe Richard Gwynn.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You never know what they are doing to you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will tell you, Madam Speaker, that both ministers were speaking on behalf of the government yesterday and I am prepared to repeat that position which is clearly the government's position. I do not know if backbenchers have or have not expressed contrary views, and to what party they belong.
I do know that cabinet has taken the position that the President of the Treasury Board and his officials have made a very fair offer. It is an offer which would give the letter sorters something like $25,000 per year. We think that is a fair offer and we think it should be discussed. We are sorry and regretful that the union negotiators have refused to come to the table to even discuss this. We have taken the clear position that there is no intention to settle this strike by legislation. It will, and should be settled by the bargaining process.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I suppose we should recognize that the Prime Minister has sent his newspaper reader to Spadina and now he is going to have to learn to read newspapers himself.


QUERY RESPECTING DURATION OF STRIKE
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General. In the last 24 hours, through no fault of theirs, he has had to lay off letter carriers and truck drivers, but he took almost no action last weekend or before the strike to avert it. May I ask him how long this unfortunate strike must go on before he will assume his responsibility to ensure that his employees can get back to work and that the people of Canada can have the return of their mail service?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, the letter carriers are off duty status for the present time. That is quite understandable because there is a lack of work. In answering the question of the hon. member, I will repeat what I said yesterday, that this will end as soon as the two parties get back to the table and negotiate a settlement. We hope that will be soon.


DOMINION CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS ACT
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement yesterday of the appointment to the other place of Peter Stollery, will the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether he was aware that a trial date had been set for next September 14 for the hearing of a petition under the Controverted Elections Act, the result of which might well void the election of Mr. Stollery of February 18, 1980, and was the Prime Minister aware that the trial date of September 14 next for the hearing of that petition was set, notwithstanding that the first judgment in this matter, which the government lost, was dated May 7 of last year, over a year ago?
What is the explanation for the timing of the Prime Minister's announcement? Why is he following this course within two months of the hearing of that petition? Is it to nullify the court action or to deny the petitioner his day in court? What is the explanation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I was not aware of that particular date. I was aware of the case which had been taken under the Controverted Elections Act. The House will remember that the basis of the action was because the then Clark government called an election and the electoral officer, under the direction of the order in council, set a specific date for an election. These are actions for which the party opposite was responsible. It is astonishing to me that, having lost not only the general election but the particular election in Spadina, they should be faulting a process of which they were the initiators.
Regardless of that, the object of the action before the courts is to declare the election void, and to create a new election, a byelection. I am saving the hon. members' lawyers money, and
July 3, 1981

the country time, by calling the byelection that they want to obtain. What more could they ask for?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister should get a prize for that one!


TIMING OF BYELECTION
Erik Nielsen: Madam speaker, the Prime Minister has used the correct terminology; it was a petition to declare the election void with all of the consequences that would retroactively flow from that kind of decision if it occurred next September 14. That would include the right of the particular hon. member to draw a parliamentary salary since February 18, 1980, and his right to cast votes in the House of Commons. Those matters have still to be decided on September 14 and will flow naturally from a result in favour of the petitioner. The Prime Minister cannot explain his timing by that red herring.
He still has not answered the question which I will put to him again, Madam Speaker. Will be explain his timing? Why did he not wait until after the trial of that petition before calling this byelection? Why did he not wait until afterwards? Has he the same plans for the other two ridings, where at least in one of them, Guelph, there is a Liberal member? Is it his plan to follow a similar course there and in Scarborough Centre, both of which ridings have petitions before the court of a similar nature to that in Spadina? Who will be running in those byelections-Michael Pitfield and what other minion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems to be answering his own questions. There are two other court cases, from what he says, and surely the courts should be left free to come to their final decisions which might-


Erik Nielsen: Why not this one?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It might take months and years, I suppose, before the appeal takes place. Once again, it is really strange that the hon. member is complaining about this particular byelection when we know that the object of their action is to cause a byelection to be held.


Erik Nielsen: That is up to the Speaker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the courts in the other cases decide that, in a sense, the election was illegally held, I would hope that the hon. member opposite and his party would indemnify the country for the mischief they caused by calling the election in this illegal way.
In so far as the timing of this particular one in Spadina is concerned, Madam Speaker, it is well known that I am planning to leave public life and I am hastening to put a good man like Jim Coutts into Parliament. I hope the electors will see it this way.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has he yet taken a decision, which I hope will be a favourable one, on moving forward with phase two of the primary highway strengthening and improvement program in the Atlantic provinces? If he has not taken that decision, can he indicate when one might be made?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the decision to extend or not to extend the highway strengthening program has not been made. To be frank, however, I think I should add that I doubt that when it is made it will be a positive one. In other words, I do not think the program will be extended.
Instead of that, we are developing now with Newfoundland and with the maritime provinces, all encompassing transportation programs covering all modes of transportation. Progress is being made to that effect, and if that goes through, as it appears it will, some savings will be made from the $500 million a year that the federal government spends in the Atlantic provinces on transportation at the moment. If savings can be made, I have good reason to believe that the cabinet would accept that a certain amount of new money should be allocated for a strengthening of highways program.


J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. Undoubtedly savings will be made, but fewer facilities will be in place.


GOVERNMENT DECISION ON UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK FORESTRY RESEARCH COMPLEX
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of the Environment. Has the government taken a decision to support the concept of promoting research and development in forestry through a forestry complex at the University of New Brunswick in conjunction with the province, the university, and the private sector? Is it the intention of the government to erect a building in the complex to house federal forestry research facilities? If so, can the minister tell me when?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, this is a matter that we have under very active consideration. I can tell the hon. member that no definitive decision has yet been taken.


J. Robert Howie: When? We have been waiting over a year.

July 3, 1981
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


PILOT RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT IN HAMILTON, ONT.
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. At the moment a decision is pending on the building of a pilot rapid transit project in the City of Hamilton under the auspices, primarily, of the provincial government, but supported financially by the federal government. Will the minister undertake a review of the project personally, or at least have it done in his ministry and reported to him, to determine exactly what traffic problems this pilot project is intended to solve and what the cost will be to the citizens of Hamilton to maintain it in years to come when the federal and provincial grant structure no longer provides money for it?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, this is a project on which we are working co-operatively with other federal departments. With respect to federal participation, there has been no final decision on that as yet. I will certainly be happy to have the issues looked into which my hon. friend has raised. They are important considerations which should be taken into account in connection with any ultimate federal decision.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, how come the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce answered? I was trying to stay away from him.


CITY'S EAST-WEST TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, in addition to looking at what traffic problems it might resolve, would the minister consider the problems of east-west traffic congestion, which is much worse in the city of Hamilton than the congestion which this may well be intended to resolve? Rather than funding this project, at whatever level the funding might be available, could the minister determine whether the federal government might fund the purchase and the development of a much better local transit system than that which exists now in an effort to solve some of the congestion that confronts us every day?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, this matter can certainly be looked into in the course of deciding whether or not there should be federal participation. I might add that we perceive the federal role as being to enhance the over all trade development, both domestic and overseas, of our urban transit technology, and also enhancing our capacity to develop a strong industry in that field rather than simply subsidizing urban transit. In that context I will certainly have my hon. friend's question examined.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. It arises out of the answer given by the Prime Minister with respect to the intentions of the government concerning the mail strike. It now appears to be the intention of the government to allow the matter to go to the bargaining table. Frankly, I think there is very little hope of that and that some day we will have to legislate these people back to work. But there is a problem, and it is a specific one.
There have been several calls to members of Parliament concerning refunds due to individual Canadians for personal income tax paid. Inquiries have been made in an attempt to receive those cheques through the offices of the Minister of National Revenue. People have been told they will not receive those cheques until the mail strike has ended. Others are being told that the emergency plan of the department is so complicated that the problem can really not be dealt with. Would the minister assure the House that he will look into this problem immediately? If there is a plan to provide those refund cheques to Canadians, will the minister assure us he will implement the plan immediately and advise the House what his intentions are with respect to that matter, because I can tell him that it is a problem in his department?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. We have already addressed that problem. I have consulted with my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services. Our cheques are normally sent to his divisional offices across the country. We are presently working on a scheme whereby they can be made available to people who deserve and need them. I might say that right now emergency services are in place should a person need a cheque for emergency purposes. In addition to that we are exploring the possibility of delivering the refund cheques all across the country.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his answer. It appears that the refund cheques are now being considered socioeconomic payments, at least in so far as the process that is being devised for distribution of the cheques is concerned.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Many of us are receiving calls with respect to delivery of cheques. I know there are some difficulties in giving a detailed answer during question period, but could the minister advise us, to the extent he can within the confines of question period, of the programs that are in place for the distribution of
July 3, 1981

the various federal governments cheques? If that is not possible, would the minister be prepared to table a document in the House of Commons perhaps today or, if not, in the early part of next week, so that all members will be able to advise their constituents by telephone rather than by mail?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his question. I might indicate to him that the government will ensure that all socioeconomic cheques, including family allowance, old age security, general income supplements, as well as all the pension cheques including war veterans allowances, will be made available to recipients.
All the cheques that were due during the month of June have been delivered. They have all been received. As for the cheques due in July, there is a plan in place that will be implemented.
Negotiations are now going on between the Postmaster General and the letter carriers' union to ascertain whether once the cheques have been sorted they will be delivered. If the outcome of that is not successful, we have a fail-back position which is already identified and will be put in place. I have directed a letter to all members of the House advising them of the measures we are contemplating so that members can advise their constituents. That letter was mailed yesterday-
Oral Questions
in daylight. I am afraid at that time the minister was not aware of what I was talking about.
I am sure by now he has been made aware of the meeting which took place at Toronto International Airport attended by many businessmen. I am sure that he is aware of the flood of letters he has received as well as the flood of letters I have received regarding the shutdown of this airport for eight hours during the day from now until November. Can the minister tell me whether he has had a change of heart and whether any changes will be made to that statement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member should indicate why these measures are being taken. They are being taken because a runway and a taxiway are being constructed. It is not antagonism to general aviation on the part of the department or of the minister. We try to limit inconvenience to the greatest extent possible.
At the moment there are exceptions to that. Last night, however, I signed many pieces of authorization paper and inasmuch as it is possible permission will be given to use the runway, notwithstanding the restrictions now in existence.


EFFECT OF RESTRICTION
Monique Bégin: Mailed?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blais:: It was not mailed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: It was distributed throughout the House of Commons yesterday. I might also advise the hon. gentleman that we have an advertising campaign to tell people generally how cheques are to be distributed.

Madam Speaker, in fact, the system is already set up to deliver throughout Canada all the federal government social benefit cheques, namely, family allowance cheques, old age security cheques and Canada pension cheques. Furthermore my officials are in consultation with their provincial counterparts to provide assistance if need be for the delivery of provincial cheques to the recipients.


AIRPORTS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Two weeks ago today I asked the minister a question about the NOTAM issued prohibiting aircraft under 7,000 pounds from landing at the Toronto International Airport for a period of eight hours


John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, I understand there is some construction going on this year. The NOTAM specifically states it is to be closed next year as well. I know of no plan for construction for next year. A company that has three aircraft, two of which fall into that category, would normally used them to fly into Toronto International, but it is now forced to fly its larger aircraft at much greater expense in energy and cost to that airport, simply to pick up parts because of this particular NOTAM. Surely there must be some other way of doing this than just categorically stopping all aircraft under 7,000 pounds.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the reality of this is that when you change a runway, construct a runway, repair it or a taxi-way, you have to take measures restricting general aviation. One confrere of my hon. friend said in the House the other day-some months ago-it was his feeling that the major airports should not be used by general aviation when there are problems with regard to runway capacity, as there is in the Toronto area. Other people accept the limitations on general freedom of aviation at airports as busy as Toronto is, he said. We are trying to minimize these difficulties. There is the problem with the reconstruction of the runway and taxi-way now.
The exceptions I was referring to were exactly related to the situation described by my hon. friend, that is, when there are urgent cases, hardship cases, exceptions can be made. The law says that the minister has to sign the exception forms and 1 spent half an hour the other day signing these papers so that urgent or emergency cases could be attended to in a proper way.

July 3, 1981
Oral Questions


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology, and it concerns the belated additional funding for the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council. When I asked the minister about this funding in February he said he expected to make an announcement in March. When I asked him about it in March he said April, and when I asked him about it in April he said May. It is now July and there has still been no announcement. Is the minister in a position to give us a definite commitment as to when the additional funding to NSERC will be made?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Madam Speaker. Next week.


AVIATION SAFETY
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transport arises from the critical shortage of air traffic controllers in Canada. Yesterday, in response to a question he indicated that a new training system will produce between 120 and 150 air traffic controllers per year. That will not satisfy the immediate requirement of 250 air traffic controllers in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal and Gander. In view of the fact there is a very major urgency to acquire additional controllers at the present time and, further, that some 1,036 air traffic controllers will be required by the year 1985-86, and under the minister's formula or training program only about half the required controllers will be produced, is the minister reconsidering his plan of action?
In view of the fact that we are now faced with shutdowns at the Calgary International Airport, and perhaps others in the future, is the minister reconsidering his program of action and, if so, when will he be in a position to bring such a program before the House?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I thought I answered the question rather well yesterday. I recognized that there was a problem. The problem is not of the magnitude my hon. friend says it is. I observe that he has bought the CATCA figures as to the number of air controllers that are needed. These figures are not accepted by the department. Apparently they are quite exaggerated. This problem existed when my hon. friend was Minister of Transport. It is not a new problem.
What 1 indicated yesterday was that a number of measures had been taken in terms of methods of recruitment of candidates, in terms of adequacy of personnel and facilities to train
them, and in terms, for example, of developing with the provinces better ways of preparing young people for the job. All kinds of things have been developed to the point that we are now in the position to say that by next year, instead of graduating 50 air controllers a year, the number will be raised to 120 new air traffic controllers.


An hon. Member:: And that is bilingual.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, indeed, special efforts are being given to the bilingual aspect of the operation.
While recognizing that there is a problem I think I have indicated sufficiently well that measures were being taken to remedy it in the fastest possible way. Apparently it takes a number of years to train a controller. We cannot mass produce them with some pill that could be distributed around.


CURTAILMENT OF SERVICES AT CALGARY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the minister does not have to accept the version of CATCA, but the fact of the matter is that their statements have in fact become reality today and that is why we are faced with the curtailment of services at places like the Calgary International, and we may face them at the Vancouver International Airport. With respect to Calgary, does the minister accept or reject the allegation by the air traffic controllers that the curtailment of air traffic services in Calgary during the period from 12 a.m. to 6 a.m. will prevent the adequate separation of aircraft, and will not provide adequate facilities to ensure that there is adequate separation between aircraft and vehicles on the ground? Furthermore, would he accept the fact that CATCA suggests that the curtailment of those services could very well create a question of legal liability for the individual supervisor involved in the Department of Transport in the event of an incident or an accident?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am sure it is not without consideration for all these potential difficulties that the department took the position it took. My hon. friend asked me yesterday to make sure that conversations or discussions would take place with the Calgary Transportation Authority. These have taken place. Following a conversation the members and I had yesterday I am going to insist that they should continue. Efforts are being made to find trainees to take into the system at the Calgary airport.
My hon. friend corrected me yesterday because I had said that the damage to traffic would not be as great as he had said. I said that it involved the movement of two or three planes an hour during the night. He corrected me by saying it was 20 planes over the whole period. If you multiply six hours by two or three planes an hour it gives you exactly the same number. All this is to say that we recognize there is a problem there, and I am going to follow up on the questions my hon. friend is raising in order to try to alleviate inconveniences to the traffic in Calgary.
July 3, 1981


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In light of the proposed changes being considered in the Narcotic Control Act, is the minister considering amendments to the Criminal Code that would establish laboratory tests for the assessment of the impaired operation of a vehicle as a result of drugs or chemicals other than alcohol, or will the assessment be made on a subjective basis?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I have taken note of the suggestion of the hon. member and I shall certainly be very happy to consider it. However, I do not know whether it is possible to establish tests of this type, but I shall certainly check into it.


DOMINION CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS ACT
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister and it is supplementary to that posed by the hon. member for Yukon having to do with the possible controversion of the elections in Spadina, Scarborough Centre and Guelph. The Prime Minister indicated he did not know if a specific date had been set for the trial under the Controverted Elections Act in the Spadina case. Will he tell the House whether he knew that a hearing had been scheduled of the specially constituted elections court to hear the Spadina petition, which hearing may well have the consequence of voiding that seat?
While he is on his feet I wonder if he might also tell us, since he knows the Spadina case was a test case and, by agreement, the cases in both Guelph and Scarborough Centre had been set aside pending the result of the Spadina case, and since Mr. Hamel is a party to the agreement and is represented, 1 would assume, by government lawyers, as a matter of policy will the government now agree to join with the other parties in the Scarborough Centre and the Guelph cases to have the speediest possible hearing of the petitions to declare the elections void in both Guelph and Scarborough Centre.
The Prime Minister indicated he was trying to help the courts out by acting before the courts could decide in the case of Spadina. Presumably he would have the same interest in having speedy action in Scarborough Centre and Guelph. I wonder if the Prime Minister would indicate whether as a matter of policy his government would agree to moving speedily with the hearing of petitions which might void the election of Liberal members in Scarborough Centre and in Guelph.
Point of Order-Mr. Tessier


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will certainly consider that suggestion. I have not been following this matter. I did not know of any specific date, as I indicated earlier. I believe if any minister of this government is involved in that matter, it might be the Minister of Justice or the President of the Privy Council. I will discuss the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition with them.



FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point has to do with an answer the minister of sport gave yesterday, as recorded at page 11135 of Hansard. I just want to clarify one thing. I hold no animosity toward the COA, which is a 95 per cent Liberal indoctrinated organization. Whether it has its office in Montreal or Ottawa makes no difference, but I think the minister should not mislead this House by saying, "I recognize that the hon. member has never been an enthusiastic supporter of the COA".


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is debating the question. He can do that at another time.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Claude Tessier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, my point of order follows upon a motion under Standing Order 43 moved by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) yesterday, on July 2, and recorded on page 11125 of Hansard.
I want to raise this point of order because I consider this motion an obvious abuse of Standing Order 43, and worse yet it is an ill-founded accusation and creates a doubt that I cannot tolerate. The hon. member will have to accept that I only did my duty in complete accordance with my responsibilities and privileges, and that moreover, I agreed to inform my colleagues of problems of which everyone should be aware. For the information of the hon. member, I shall simply say that I received by Purolator courier, envelopes which could be addressed to any member of the House. These envelopes and letters were sent to me by the manager of Jomac Canada-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please! I must say to the hon. member that there has been no abuse of Standing Order 43. Under this procedure, the hon. member introduced a motion in the House which, for reasons unknown to me and about which I cannot speculate, did not receive the consent of the House.

July 3, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Tessier
The motion was then disposed of in the prescribed manner. While I understand that this motion may have offended the hon. member, I cannot allow him to continue to debate this issue.


Claude Tessier: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please! No, no more discussion can be allowed. There has been no abuse of Standing Order 43. The House has disposed of the hon. member's motion. There can be no more discussion about it. The hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) on a point of order.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I do not intend to question your decision or comment on it, but there are two aspects to the question. The one you disposed of is behind us. You found that the motion under SO 43 was in order. It was turned down and that is good! But there is another more general aspect I would like to point out, the one the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Tessier) had in mind, namely, that often, motions under SO 43 are used to make innuendoes and harm the honour and integrity of hon. members. This has nothing to do with the motion under SO 43 being agreed to or not. It is another aspect that deserves to be considered, and I respectfu-ly submit that what the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead had in mind was to deal with that aspect involving his honour and integrity, and he was going to make his point. Therefore, it is my respectful submission, Madam Speaker, that you did not have all the information to determine whether that second aspect deserves to be heard or not.


Madam Speaker:: No, not at all. That motion could have been debated with unanimous consent. The substance could have been debated in this House. For reasons that are beyond my interpretation, the House decided to refuse consent to debate the motion. Perhaps it found the motion totally irrelevant or it might have been for another reason, but all I can do is to apply the rules.
A motion for which unanimous consent is required cannot be debated unless it is unanimously agreed to. What the hon. member is now doing is debating such a motion. I appreciate his desire to do so, but cannot allow him to proceed at this point.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises from a remark which perhaps should not have been made but nevertheless was permitted until such time as the Chair stopped the hon. member from speaking. In effect, the hon. member cast reflections on my integrity as a member of this House, which is a very distinct question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: What did you do?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: If you cast reflections on one's integrity, you are going to have to put up with the consequences. Who do you think you are, God, like Trudeau does?


Madam Speaker:: Order. I can say quite firmly that I did not see that there was any intention of casting any reflection on the hon. member's reputation. The hon. member was trying to make a point about a motion under Standing Order 43 moved by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt). The question is closed. There is no question of privilege, and the point of order raised by the hon. member for Megantic-Comp-ton-Stanstead (Mr. Tessier) cannot be taken at this point.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,419, 2,442, 2,517, 2,589 and 2,597.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past five years, what amount was received by the Department of National Revenue as assessed corporation taxes over and above the amount declared by companies in their original year end tax reports?
2.	In each year, which industry was assessed the most in additional corporation taxes?


Claude Tessier: 
Mr. Clarke: 1.	What is the average length of time for an income tax reassessment to be processed from receipt of application to issuance of a refund cheque or other final disposition at the Department of National Revenue Taxation Centre in Surrey, British Columbia?
2.	What is the average length of time taken for the procedures at all other centres?
3.	Do the lengths of time in parts 1 and 2 differ and, if so, for what reason?
4.	Were measures undertaken or are they planned to improve the service at the Surrey Taxation Centre and, if so, what are the measures?


Claude Tessier: 1. The average length of time for an income tax return to be reassessed from the receipt of the taxpayer's request to the issuance of a refund cheque is nine weeks. This is under normal conditions but is dependent on a number of factors. For example, at the year end, computer processing is delayed due to the computer being down to prepare for next year's program. When inventories are high during the filing season, the processing cycles can take longer. When additional information is required from the taxpayer, this can cause a delay until the matter is settled.
2.	The average length of time taken for the procedures is essentially the same at all centres.
3.	See answer to part 2.
4.	A number of small changes in procedures and techniques have been made to speed the flow of work. The most significant has been a new system of control over correspondence to identify and expedite adjustments that appear to be exceeding the normal time for completion.


Mr. Oberle: Is Mr. K. B. (King) Ganong employed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and, if so (a) in which position (b) on what date was he appointed (c) what was his salary (i) at the time of appointment (ii) as of April 1, 1981 (d) how many employees does he supervise?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: Yes, since June 7, 1949.
(a)	and (b) Mr. K. B. Ganong was appointed assistant to the president for the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories on August 28, 1978.
(c)	(i) The salary range at the time of appointment was


[Stage Direction]
(ii) As at April 1, 1981, the salary range is $41,210- $51,506.
(d)	Mr. Ganong has 30 employees under his supervision.
Order Paper Questions
CIDA/ENV-CONTRACT WITH INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER LTD.
Mr. Stewart: Did the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of the Environment purchase a dump truck valued at $214,696 from International Harvester Ltd. and, if so (a) for what purpose and at what location will the truck be used (b) what were the specifications for the truck (c) were public tenders called (d) what was the name of the bidder and the amount of any other bid submitted?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: DSS awarded two contracts to International Harvester Ltd., on behalf of the Canadian International Development Agency and Environment Canada, for the purchase of four dump trucks and spare parts.
(a)	(i) Three dump trucks are to be used for the Tanzania Canada Wheat program.
(ii) One dump truck to be used in Fourillon National Park, Gaspe, Quebec.
(b)	(i) CIDA supplied the following specification:
"(MMD) No. VI292 for Diesel Powered 6*4 Dump Truck GVW 46,000 lbs."
(ii) Parks Canada specification: "Truck 4*2 Diesel 12,747 kg (27,500 lbs) GVWR c/w dump body."
(c)	(i) Requests for proposals for the CIDA requirement
were sent to six firms and two replied as follows:
White Motor Trucks	$203,101.
International Harvester Ltd.	$182,101.
(ii) Request for proposals for Environment Canada requirement were sent to eight firms and two replied as follows:
White Motor Trucks	$41,508.
International Harvester Ltd.	$32,595.
The lower bid was accepted and the total value of the two contracts was $214,696.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the government make revisions retroactive to the fiscal year 1926-27 or earlier to the extent of the (a) gross (b) net public debt and, if not, for what reason does data contained in the table "Gross and Net Public Debt: Historical Trends", provided to Members of Parliament in the Department of Finance document "Background Information on an Act to Provide Supplementary Borrowing Authority for Fiscal Year 1980/81", differ from data published in the Public Accounts?
2.	For each year since Confederation, what was the (a) gross (b) net public debt of the government?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: 1. The
government has made revisions retroactive to the fiscal year 1926-27 with respect to: (a) the gross public debt and (b) the net public debt. These revisions place the series on a basis consistent with the 1979-80 Public Accounts. As recording of gross and net public debt in the 1979-80 Public Accounts is

July 3, 1981
Order Paper Questions
different from Public Accounts recording of earlier years, the government's revised figures differ from those published in the Public Accounts of 1978-79 and earlier years.
2. The list below shows: (a) the gross public debt and (b) the net public debt of the government since Confederation.
Gross Public Debt and Net Public Debt Since Confederation
Gross Public Debt	Net Public Dept
As at End of	($ Millions)	
1867-68	94	761868-69	109	761869-70	113	781870-71	110	781871-72	117	821872-73	124	1001873-74	136	1081874-75	145	1 161875-76	154	1251876-77	167	1331877-78	166	1401878-79	170	1431879-80	184	1531880-81	188	1551881-82	192	1541882-83	188	1591883-84	227	1821884-85	248	1961885-86	255	2231886-87	253	2271887-88	263	2351888-89	264	2381889-90	261	2381890-91	263	2381891-92	266	2411892-93	269	2421893-94	275	2461894-95	283	2531895-96	289	2591896-97	294	2621897-98	297	2641898-99	302	2661899-1900	300	2661900-01	306	2691901-02	315	2721902-03	308	2621903-04	316	2611904-05	328	2661905-06	343	2671906-07	333	2641907-08	359	2781908-09	433	3241909-10	456	3361910-11	464	3401911-12	496	3401912-13	469	3141913-14	535	3361914-15	690	4491915-16	924	6151916-17	1,368	8791917-18	1,846	1,1921918-19	2,658	1,5751919-20	3,019	2,2491920-21	2,903	2,3411921-22	2,902	2,4221922-23	2,889	2,4541923-24	2,820	2,4181924-25	2,818	2,4171925-26	2,769	2,3901926-27	2,726	2,3481927-28	2,677	2,2971928-29	2,647	2,2261929-30	2,545	2,1781930-31	2,609	2,262
Gross Public Debt and Net Public Debt Since Confederation
As at End of	Gross Public Debt ($ Millions)	Net Public Dept1931-32	2,827	2,3761932-33	2,987	2,5971933-34	3,141	2,7301934-35	3,202	2,8461935-36	3,431	3,0061936-37	3,542	3,0841937-38	3,540	3,1021938-39	3,711	3,1531939-40	4,029	3,2711940-41	5,019	3,6491941-42	6,607	4,0451942-43	9,086	6,1831943-44	12,174	8,7401944-45	15,376	1 1,2981945-46	18,808	13,4211946-47	17,422	13,0481947-48	16,524	12,3721948-49	16,494	1 1,7761949-50	16,730	1 1,6451950-51	16,905	1 1,4331951-52	16,972	11,1851952-53	17,656	11,2611953-54	17,630	11,1621954-55	17,560	1 1,3261955-56	18,022	1 1,3301956-57	17,792	1 1,0091957-58	17,939	1 1,0461958-59	19,549	1 1,6781959-60	20,294	12,1171960-61	20,807	12,4541961-62	22,100	13,2271962-63	23,838	13,9621963-64	25,415	15,1701964-65	26,288	15,5301965-66	26,845	15,3261966-67	28,471	15,5351967-68	30,525	16,2241968-69	32,572	16,7151969-70	33,691	16,2221970-71	37,669	16,5941971-72	41,329	18,8111972-73	44,475	19,8101973-74	47,037	21,1941974-75	52,283	22,9271975-76	59,384	28,3901976-77	66,756	34,6001977-78	79,916	44,8891978-79	98,023	57,1 151979-80	106,199	68,5951980-81 <a>	122,006	82,745
(a) Figures for 1980-81 are not yet final. However, estimates for 1980-81 consistent with 1979-80 figures and the October 28, 1980 budget would place 1980-81 gross public debt at $122,006 million and the 1980-81 net public debt at $82,745 million.
Note:
Figures for 1971-72 to 1979-80 are in line with the accounting changes incorporated in the 1979-80 Public Accounts. For the years 1867-68 to
1970-	71 inclusive, the figures are consistent with each other but are not strictly comparable with 1971-72 and subsequent years.
An indication of the non-comparability of the two series is as follows: If
1971-	72 had been calculated on the same basis as for 1867-68 to 1970-71, then the 1971-72 gross public debt would have been $41,391 million instead of $41,329 million, and the 1971-72 net public debt would have been $ 17,296 million instead of $ 18,81 I million.
The figures in the above table incorporate revisions to those included in the Department of Finance document "Background Information Concerning
July 3, 1981

Borrowing Authority for Fiscal Year 1981-82", provided to members of Parliament.
For 1905-06 and earlier years, figures are as at June 30, e.g., for 1905-06, the figures for gross and net debt relate to June 30, 1906. For the years 1906-07 to 1980-81, gross and net debt are as at March 31, e.g., for 1906-07, the figures relate to March 31, 1907.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-58, to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to address Bill C-58 which, if passed by this House, will have the effect of reducing the period within which one may campaign for a federal election from approximately 60 days to 47. The bill, while significant in terms of the number of paragraphs, has little consequential effect upon the conduct of elections, save and except for the changes which are necessitated as a consequence of the reduction in the over-all time for the conduct of an election campaign. There are some exceptions, and to those I shall direct my attention later.
1 suppose that the initial reaction of most persons involved in an election campaign, certainly from the standpoint of a candidate, would be to be inclined to approve of the principles involved in the reduction in the period during which an election campaign may be conducted. People in this House very clearly would be most delighted with the general prospect of reducing the time when one is confronted with what may be regarded by some as a somewhat rigorous period in their political careers. This rigorous period, depending on the success of the individual member of this House, repeats itself time and time again.
Canada Elections Act
Upon reflection, however, I think one would also find the general public may become somewhat weary of elections and prefer a shorter period than the one we now have. We have witnessed in the United Kingdom, and in provincial elections, certainly in my own province, an extremely short election term. Parliament is terminated, the election is called and then the legislators are sitting again with a substantial rapidity. All of those considerations tend to induce one, looking objectively at this bill's provisions, to believe that it would be appropriate indeed to pass same. On balance, having regard not to individual ridings but to the nation as a whole, one would be inclined to favour that principle.
There are in mind, Mr. Speaker, two categories of electoral districts that will be substantially affected by the provisions of this bill if passed. One of them is the category my riding finds itself in. The riding of York North is the seventh largest riding in Canada in terms of registered voters. At the time of the last general election there were 80,379 persons entitled to vote. Compare that with the largest riding in Canada, York-Scar-borough, with a total of 108,619 voters. However, between York-Scarborough and York North there were a number of ridings in which the total number of voters did not greatly exceed that of York North. The significance is not so much the numerical superiority over the great majority of ridings in Canada, but the degree of change within my riding compared with the number at the time of the 1979 general election.
In the short nine month period between roughly May of 1979 and February of 1980 there was a population change of
10,000	people in the riding. Yet there had not been the full gap of one year between elections. There were 2,500 people who left the riding, and 7,500 newcomers. The total growth in population was only 5,000, but the total change was 10,000. Given the nature of the riding and its particular circumstances today, I suspect that with the results of last month's census we will find York North's population has grown with a corresponding increase in the number of electors so that it has now in all probability moved up from the seventh position it had in 1980. The effect of these changes, Mr. Speaker, is that it takes a good deal of time to cause the machinery to be put in place which will result in the dispatch of enumerators, the accumulation of information for the preliminary lists and the addition of those who were missed on the preliminary voters' list.
York North covers a geographical area about 25 miles wide and about 12 miles in depth. It consists of three complete towns, Markham, Richmond Hill and Vaughan, each of which is a large geographical area with a centre or group of centres allocated to commercial activities and large surrounding residential areas. By way of illustration, Mr. Speaker, in the town of Vaughan there are housing starts and applications for building permits to a total of 20,000 homes. The effect of this growth on Vaughan will be staggering. Growth in Markham and Richmond Hill is proceeding apace as well. Large industrial corporations have decided to locate there because they have found, as a result of astute municipal administration, the rates of tax there are substantially less than in metropolitan

July 3, 1981
Canada Elections Act
Toronto immediately to the south. This astute municipal planning and prudent tax administration has inevitably led to the location of housing to accommodate the growing commercial and industrial complexes which have established themselves and continue to expand within the region.
It is this growth which will have a substantial effect upon the accumulation of information necessary to prepare the voters' lists properly for the next general election. One can very easily recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there are some ridings, not including mine, that are large in geographical area. We need only examine the riding of the Yukon and the two ridings in the Northwest Territories, indeed the northern regions in all our provinces, to realize the travelling time will be extensive in those areas if indeed members and candidates for Parliament are to be given an opportunity to contact as many of their constituents or intended constituents as they can.
My problem, the problem of ridings which experience large increases in population, is not too dissimilar. While it may take me a shorter period of time to travel from one part of the riding to another, there are more constituents between those two points than there would be in the ridings of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. The problem is the same: time to meet people.
Those sitting in the House, Mr. Speaker, have been blessed by the confidence of electors in one part or another of Canada. I do not know whether it is appropriate for anyone here to believe that he or she is here indefinitely. The democratic process through which we pass contemplates that each of us and those who replace us, since most assuredly we will be replaced at some time, will confront our constituents. Either we will impress upon them our willingness to serve and our genuine desire to benefit the nation or, in the case of an unsuccessful candidate, I suppose he does not meet the general requirements of his constituents.
The process is one of time. We well recognize that, despite the fact we sit here and say that the public knows we serve, there are others wishing to take our place who never become involved in the political process until the date the writ is issued. It is unfortunate but nevertheless a fact of political life.
Is it appropriate, accordingly, for us to take upon ourselves an advantage? Is it appropriate to suggest that the gap in time should be lessened within which we must face our political opponents on the campaign trail, within which we must curtail the number of all-candidates' meetings held throughout our ridings to provide those opponents an opportunity to display to voters their debating skills and knowledge of the subject matter which should concern them in determining how to cast their votes? I should think not. I believe the will of the public is best expressed at the time of an election. Members of the public can best express that will if they are well informed and have an opportunity to see and hear those who wish to represent them in the House of Commons.
We know what happened in the 1980 election. The election was called near the end of December; I recall the House was dissolved on December 14. It was not until after New Years that people began to establish dates for all-candidates' meetings and to begin effectively to engage in an election campaign. We may say that that gap in time would really bring us roughly within the period of time which this bill now contemplates. In the event that we should be confronted with another election at a similar time, we will have lopped off another two weeks within which the public will have an opportunity to view us and our opponents in an election campaign. Is that appropriate? I suggest it is not.
As members of the House we have substantial advantages which are well known to all of us but spoken of rarely. I am speaking of the opportunity we all have to speak in the House, to have our remarks recorded, and to have our speeches in part played back on television. We have an opportunity to dispatch to our constituents householder mailings, to communicate freely with our constituents using our frank. It is an opportunity which our opponents do not have. I am not suggesting for a moment that we be deprived of those advantages, but none of us is here forever. Passage of time, change of political mood, and even the desire among some of us to retire and be replaced by someone in our own party will result in others coming to this place.
It is my submission that it is appropriate to grant to the public the longest reasonable opportunity within which to make an intelligent choice. As I indicated, I have the additional problem within my own riding of knowing that with the massive influx of new voters it will be more difficult than ever to put all those new voters on the preliminary lists and subsequently entitle them all to cast their ballots on election day. From the experience we have personally had in North York, we know there are always complaints after a general election that a number of people have been missed. It occurs as a consequence of the shortness of the time in some cases. It occurs because someone was not home and did not in fact transmit the appropriate information. As a matter of fact, whole streets in North York were missed at the time of the enumeration for the 1979 election. The reduction in the time within which all of this shall take place is, therefore, a matter which concerns me and leads me to conclude that accordingly it is inappropriate to deal with this bill in the fashion which one might at first blush appear to favour.
Let me deal, if I may, with the effects of the reduction in time upon the expense limit with which all of us are familiar. We know that as a consequence of the application of Clauses 4 and 5 which are found on page 3 of the bill, the number of days within which one may prepare the preliminary list and accordingly obtain the necessary information to transmit to candidates for Parliament so that they may prepare their budgets has been reduced from 19 days to 11 days.
The effect on all of us in breaching the expense provisions of the Canada Elections Act can be calamitous. It is well recognized by all hon. members of the House that to exceed those spending limits will result in the loss of a seat properly won,
July 3, 1981

but lost for the failure to comply with the maximum amount of money which may be spent during the course of an election campaign. We also know that those limits vary from riding to riding depending upon the number of electors. It is my considered opinion that what we have in the course of that reduction in time is a risk that we shall hastily prepare budgets which are unrealistic, exceed those budgets, and accordingly find ourselves in a situation where we may have breached the terms of the act itself and placed a successful election in jeopardy.
Clause 5(2) makes provision for the furnishing of copies of preliminary lists to all electors, copies of the pages on which their names appear to identify individual electors with their right to cast ballots. We know that the former practice or the practice which is currently in existence would be eliminated should this bill be passed. It makes provision for the dispatch of a list not only naming the individual elector, but all those electors in his poll. Also the practice of posting preliminary lists in convenient places within the poll region will be eliminated. But the interesting fact is that clause 5(2) makes reference to the furnishing to each person of their name on a preliminary list. One wonders how that furnishing is to be undertaken in the event that we are confronted with a strike of the kind we have now.
I know the practice in the past has been that legislation has been passed precluding the occurrence of a strike in the postal service during the time of an election campaign. Indeed, that might well be the answer. But right now during the course of an election campaign one may go out and examine the list of electors which is posted on telephone poles, where we are accustomed to finding them, to determine whether or not your name has been included. That process would be eliminated if this legislation which is before us were passed.
I say that elimination constitutes a general loss in terms of what the public has come to expect; the loss of finding one's name on the list may result in the ultimate loss of the right to vote at all. The public has become accustomed to a particular way of dealing with elections. They know they can follow a course of conduct which will result in a determination as to whether or not they are on the list when the lists are posted.
I have heard some of the arguments which have been made when this bill was earlier discussed to the effect that the posting of these lists constitutes a danger to people in the community since, in the event that one were criminally inclined, one would be able to identify people who seem to be living alone and therefore set upon them at some time and perpetrate an offence. I do not know that there ever has been any evidence that this is the way in which criminals gain information about who lives where. To my knowledge there is no evidence of there having been a criminal wave during the course of an election campaign, unless we speak of the crimes perpetrated on the public through speeches made by politicians promising things which are never delivered or promises which are changed in the event that the candidate happens to be
Canada Elections Act
successful. It is alarmist to view the posting of these lists as constituting some threat to the community.
I would like to direct the attention of the House to Clause 6 of the bill, which deals with the shortening of the time for the entire election. This would shorten the period of time within which enumerators can be appointed. We are all familiar with the process which occurs after an election is called. A campaign team or a political party swings into action. One of the essential ingredients of a successful campaign is the appointment of enumerators who may, in company with persons from the opposing political party, prepare the list of electors. There is always a great clamouring for extra time so that the lists of enumerators may be prepared.
Over a period of years each political party within a riding accumulates a list of people who can undertake the enumerating tasks. These lists are rather jealously guarded since they consist of the names of people who have proven competent in the past. In the case of my particular riding, and with the growth to which I have made reference and the consequential growth in the number of places or polls where votes may be taken, it has become necessary to continue to update and add to these lists. But the lists are not always perfect and must be checked.
Should an election be called right now, Mr. Speaker, both myself, as one of the persons referred to in the act as having a right to be communicated with by the Chief Electoral Officer in the riding, and the candidate running against me, who at the time of the last election had the next highest number in the vote in terms of his party affiliation, have an equal opportunity to appoint enumerators. At the present time the gap is six days, which will be reduced to five. Members opposite ask what difference a single day can make. I can tell hon. members that it was awkward to put together the lists in six days and now we shall only have five to perform the same task. It is not an easy matter to put together the names of people who are to perform this task without the assistance of the political parties. I know there is a stop-gap arrangement which entitles the Chief Electoral officer in the riding to make those appointments. In my riding, and I suspect in a great many others, the political parties which in the past have supplied this information are generally looked to to provide it again. If I were making any recommendations with respect to an amendment to the Canada Elections Act, I would suggest that this period of time be extended and not, in fact, restricted.
There is a consequential effect of a somewhat similar nature arising out of Clause 11 which would reduce the number of days for the granting of a poll. In a riding which has a somewhat static population it is understood that the polls originally established will not subsequently change in number. In a riding such as North York, which is constantly expanding in terms of the number of electors, one will find the constant need for additional polls. Accordingly, it is of some substantial benefit to us if we know well in advance the number of additional polls which are to be established since with the polls come the lists and with the lists come an opportunity to consult

July 3, 1981
Canada Elections Act
directly with the constituents whose names appear on those lists.
I have dealt with what I consider to be some of the essential ingredients of the bill. My major concern is with the effect the reduction of time will have upon those who have an opportunity to judge the ability and character of those people who are offering themselves for political office. Anything that this House does to reduce that period of necessary exposure would, in my opinion, have a somewhat detrimental effect upon the process with which we are all familiar.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-58, to amend the Canada Elections Act. Quite frankly, I rise to speak on this bill because in its earlier forms it was a bill which never particularly concerned me. I must admit that perhaps I had not fully considered the consequence of lowering the number of days which will elapse between the issuance of a writ for an election and the actual polling day itself. But I rise now because I am concerned about many matters with respect to this bill.
I think that we who sit in this House would tend to share the view that we are drifting into something approaching an electoral dictatorship in this country and it is not healthy. It is not healthy for good government that this should be developing. It is certainly not healthy as far as democracy is concerned, because it may well be that that sense of growing indifference of the public to the whole electoral process will heighten. I suggest it will heighten to the degree that we start to minimize the actual election campaign periods themselves.
Let me share a few views with Your Honour and other hon. members of the House. I guess Canada is the largest country in the world geographically which has a democracy. I acknowledge that India has the largest population; but from a geographic standpoint Canada is the largest democratically run country in the world. Surely that should first flag the fact that we perhaps need a longer time-frame than most other countries would feel is necessary for an election, considering the geographical problems we have in this country.
Think of what happened in the last campaign, a campaign which was triggered in mid-December, with a vote on February 18. Think of what happens in such areas as the northern Arctic, Northwest Territories and the Yukon. First, let us not presume that Canada can get by on a comparatively short campaign period. Let us remember the geographic distances in this country.
However, I suggest that a more serious matter is that we are evolving-and this is not unique in Canada-to the point where politics is becoming more and more a media extravaganza. I suggest it is becoming particularly oriented to the 30-second or 60-second clip on TV. Sadly, it is not a question of Parliament itself being exposed so much as the question of the exposure of the leaders of the governing party, the official opposition, and whatever rump groups happen to be in existence at any particular time, such as the NDP at the present time.
What I am saying is that more and more a system seems to be evolving which is not a presidential system such as that found in France and certain other countries, and, in particular the United States of America, but a system which is still the old parliamentary representative government system, one which is treated like a presidential system. The significant item on the national news at night, be it on CTV, Global or the CBC, is not so much what transpired in Parliament, but what glib statement the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made that day, or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) or the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) as leader of the NDP or as vice-president of Socialist International. In short, more and more people are being asked to focus on the simple question as to whether or not they liked what the Prime Minister said, or what the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the NDP said. I suggest to Your Honour that that will kill the whole parliamentary system-


Ian Deans: This is going to kill it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -if it is allowed to develop to the point where it is simply a question of imageries-


Mr. Laniel:: Mr. Trudeau was very quiet in the last election.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -when the people come to choose the government they would like to see run this country.
The reason I am dwelling on this point is that I feel that we, the 282 members of this House, must always be cognizant of the fact that we have the best working democratic system in the world.


Ian Deans: This?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: But it is essentially founded on the concept of this House being supreme, that the government of the day is entirely responsible to this House and must keep the confidence of this House or go to the electorate. I say that because, to the degree that we, as members of this House, inadvertently start to downplay the attention which the public pays to this House, presumably shifting their attention more to the leader imagery question, I think the more we will find that this House becomes absolutely irrelevant.
The thing that alarms me, and one of the reasons I am speaking today, is that there have been so many indications from this present government as to the utter contempt in which it holds this House that I am therefore hesitant to say; "Well, fine. Let us shorten the electoral period so that if the government wishes to call an election in the future it will have still fewer days left open to debate the issues of the day and hopefully get a proper verdict on election day as to who it wants to see sit as the 282 hon. members of the House".
I will come back to speak about the areas in which I feel this government is being particularly contemptuous of Parliament; but let me develop what I am saying a little further.
July 3, 1981

If it is true that, as far as the public is concerned, a greater fixation with leaders is developing as opposed to the governing process, what has happened in other countries? Surely, it is strange that we should be standing in this House saying that we should shorten our electoral period from roughly 60 days down to something like 47 days, when our main democratic neighbour, the United States, spends almost a year contemplating prior to the choice of its new leader, the President, every four years. Why do the Americans feel it is necessary to go through their very complicated electoral process of having preliminary skirmishes, of eventually having leaders run to gain the nomination of their respective parties, the republican or democratic party, and then go into the contest itself?


Ian Deans: Do you think they have any better government?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Surely, the answer is that in that democracy it is felt that that type of time is needed to give the electorate of the United States, literally state by state, an opportunity to review who the potential candidates are for the presidency, to give their electoral votes, state by state, and to support whatever candidate they feel is desirable. Eventually, that the system evolves to the point where certain candidates are finally put before the country. Even then there is a campaign of several months before the November voting day and a new President is chosen.
Geographically, Canada is a bigger country to govern than the United States. This should cause us to hesitate and ask why we could do something in 47 days that the United States thinks its needs up to a year to do as far as its process is concerned.
I notice my friend, the hon. member from Hamilton-Went-worth-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hamilton Mountain.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has been asking, "Yes, but do the Americans get better government?" I suggest to him that at the present time yes, the Americans are getting better government. It is certainly better government than the Trudeau government is giving to this country.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Traitor, traitor!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: There are other examples.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Selling his country!


Walter David Baker: No, just selling his government.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Just within the week I saw the outcome of the election in Israel. In Israel there is a minimum time of five months for electoral campaigns. Can anyone in this House say that the electoral result in Israel, which was virtually a dead-heat, would have been the same five months ago? I suggest that the answer is obvious. We found that in Israel, during the five-month or, I guess, almost six-month campaign, a tremendous swing in public attitudes started to take place between
Canada Elections Act
the governing party and the labour party which sought to take over. To me, that is democracy at work. People were given an opportunity to review the positions of the rival parties, to decide during that period which candidate they wished to choose. There was no suggestion of a 47-day guillotine which would have arbitrarily meant they had to vote on what I suggest is largely a question of the leadership charisma aspect that people like to talk about at the present time and which is largely the result of TV handling of politics in this country and others today.
I could take hon. members through many more democratic processes. France has just had an election which had a much longer time-frame than we are contemplating here. France goes through the process of double voting. The first vote simply finds out who the main contenders are and the two then have a run-off vote. I suggest that all these questions should be asked by members of this House before they accept the 47-day provision.
Let me touch now on the question of how arrogant and contentious the government is. This is what makes me so fearful of giving the government another advantage in the mind-bending that it seems to glory in. Just think of the money the government is spending on advertising to try and convince the average Canadian what a good job it is doing. Almost $70 million of taxpayers' money is being spent to condition the Canadian electorate to the notion that the federal government is big brother and is always looking after them. At the bottom line the inference is: "Re-elect us and you will get more of these goodies".
Surely that should cause people to ask if it is wholesome. I suggest that it is not a wholesome thing to have the federal government the number one spender in the country, in terms of dollars, in order to convince people, whose money they have lifted out of their pockets, that they are benefiting from its policies.
If that is put in the context of always getting a little narrower and shorter time frame for an election campaign, then we can see the problem ahead of us. Coming up to the 47-day period, I can just see the advertising dollars flying around and the goodies being described. As long as the government can keep the confidence of the House, it can decide when to trigger an election. Just think of the disadvantage to everyone else. We had an example of that yesterday. With absolutely no notice to this House, we were told that one of our members has been invited-


Walter David Baker: "Summoned."


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: "Summoned" is the technical term-to the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Kicked upstairs."


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: This creates a vacancy and means that an election will now be held on August 17. The government has an advantage in that election. The Prime Minister's former
11182

July 3, 1981
Canada Elections Act
aide had warning of what was coming. He had his resignation in. He had his airline ticket booked to Toronto in order to hold a press conference last night to say, "I am off and running, subject to getting the nomination of my party." Meanwhile, any party interested in running a candidate in the Spadina riding has first of all to select that candidate, get organized, campaign and try to win the seat by August 17. I suggest that this is a mini-federal election in the Spadina riding.
All this should indicate to any thoughtful member how wrong it is to leave a government-especially a government that is handled by the emperor in the way he handles government in this country-the option that at any time after spending million of dollars on advertising to condition the Canadian public, it simply declares an election and within 47 days has a vote which the emperor thinks will restore him to power. Not only has the emperor been ruling the country the way he has, but judging from his answer to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) today, it would appear that he is making room for his heir apparent, Mr. Jim Coutts. He is the new "Prince of Wales" in Canada.


Mr. Gauthier:: Are you jealous?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I think some of you fellows should be jealous. Just think how convenient it will be for the emperor if we hand him the added advantage of only having to campaign for 47 days, after he thinks conditions are right, to renew his mandate.
I mention these things because I think it is easy for us to bumble into this type of amendment. Some people may ask what the difference is, saying that 60 days is a long time to campaign. Let there be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the difference is that a short campaign helps the incumbent and works to the disadvantage of those fighting to get into power. 1 do not think that is healthy for democracy.


Ian Deans: From now until August 17 is less than 47 days.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My socialist friend the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain comes to my assistance again and points out that August 17 is even less than 47 days away. That shows how far the government will go in shortening campaign periods.
It is approaching one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to touch on one other thing that we should give some thought to when considering the Canada Elections Act. I refer to holding public opinion polls during an election campaign. As most hon. members know, I have a bill, C-555, before the House. I should like to put clause 1 on the record, which reads as follows:
1. The Canada Elections Act is amended by inserting, immediately after section 104 thereof, the following:


&quot;PUBLIC OPINION POLLS
[Stage Direction]
105. (1) No person, company or corporation shall, between the twentyeighth day prior to polling day and until the polls are closed, publish by radio
or television broadcast, by newspaper, news-sheet, poster, billboard, handbill,
or in any other manner, in any electoral district in which an election or
referendum is being held, the result or purported result of a poll of the political opinions of electors in relation to the election or referendum.
(2) Any person, company or corporation that contravenes the provisions of this section and, in the case of a company or corporation, any person responsible for the contravention thereof, is guilty of an illegal practice and of an offence against this act."
I believe it is necessary to amend the Canada Elections Act-and if the bill gets to committee I shall propose such an amendment-because if an independent analysis were conducted of the manoeuvring that took place with respect to public opinion polls during the 1980 election campaign, it would be seen that they had a devastating effect on the outcome of the polls on election day. Surely it is unforgivable to have a Gallup poll which indicates the Liberals leading by 20 per cent compared to the Conservative party a few days before the election, and then to find that the estimates of how the electorate felt were 100 per cent too high.
Perhaps I may continue at two o'clock, Mr. Speaker. May I call it one o'clock.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have won over one member on the government side. At least he applauds when I stand!
Before lunch we were discussing the general proposition of supporting or not supporting Bill C-58, to amend the Canada Elections Act. I believe I pointed out first that I felt we should be hesitant to endorse this type of bill which shortens the length of the campaign period from about 60 days to 46 days. I say that because geographically speaking we are the largest democracy in the world. We have an extremely severe climate, one that is extremely hot in summer and extremely cold in winter. To suggest that we should shorten the campaign period, which at the time of confederation was deemed to be proper at 60 days, to 47 days is something we should not endorse without a full debate.
[DOT] (MIO)
If we look at other democracies in the world, such as Israel and France, we will Find that in all cases the campaign periods are very long. The only places that have a comparatively short campaign are places with unitary-type governments with a very small geographically concentrated area.
I felt it was important while debating Bill C-58 to point out that I do have a bill on the order paper, C-555, dealing with the publication of the results of opinion polls, in which I have asked that the House consider that opinion polls immediately prior to an election, say for 28 days leading up to the election, should not be allowed in the sense that they are made public,
July 3, 1981

because they in themselves become very unfortunate factors in the election.
I remember in 1980 when I had an opportunity to visit various areas of Canada during that election campaign, and it was very disconcerting when speaking at a gathering at Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver or Halifax to find that the main thing the people you were speaking to were concerned about was not necessarily an issue, but whether it was true that the emperor was going to win the 1980 election and get back into power.
My point is that we have to be hesitant in proposing a shorter campaign period so we do not inadvertently give the present government, or any other government in power at the time, an unfair advantage in being re-elected. We all agree that in most instances the timing of an election is up to the government. Very rarely does a government allow its total term to run out before calling an election. As long as the government, through its majority in the House, can keep the confidence of the House it is the government's option as to when it calls an election. To then say we only have 47 days before the actual polling gives members of opposition parties- if they are in the House that is one thing, but most importantly those candiates who are not in the House-a terrible problem getting organized, campaigning and making their views known to the point they obtain the necessary votes to get elected on election day.
I could make various comments on why I feel public opinion polls should be restricted prior to an election. Most of us have witnessed the errors which occur in these polls. It is true to say, I think, that not only are the polls often in error and very misleading, but they concentrate unduly on what I was referring to earlier as the personality cult that seems to be taking over in the political world today. What I was referring to is the fact that it is the leaders that the media seem to concentrate on. For example, in the riding of Sarnia-Lambton, if I may use that as an example, instead of the media concentrating on the candidates running in that riding we often find that the thing the media talks about is who are the leaders of the political parties that happen to have fielded candidates in that riding.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). I did allow him before one o'clock to refer to his Bill C-555 as a courtesy to him, in view of the fact he has that bill to put forward; but in the sense of courtesy to other members whom I have had to correct on other occasions when talking on this bill, I must ask the hon. member to realize that the requirements of relevance are in play and that the issue before the hon. member is the matter of 60 days versus 47 days. I ask the hon. member to bring his remarks closer to that subject.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1 thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your intervention, but you will recall that I did refer to the bill which is on the order paper in the context that I wanted hon. members to know I would be making that type of amendment to this bill should it ever get to committee. I felt, in saying that, that I was perhaps justified in making a few comments on why I
Canada Elections Act
think this question of public opinion polls being banned immediately prior to an election is very relevant to this debate dealing with the Canada Elections Act.
My comment just before your intervention was on this question of the concentration on leadership that is starting to take hold as opposed to what we really do during an election, and that is elect 282 representatives to this Parliament. My fear is that to the degree that we shorten the term from 60 to 47 days we are going to increase the likelihood that in truth an election becomes a leadership race as opposed to a race by over
1,000	candidates each trying to be elected as one of the 282 members of Parliament. I felt that was a lessening of the workings of Parliament and a lessening of our whole representative government.
When I say that, I believe it cannot be overlooked that the only people in this country who can vote for the person who is now our Prime Minister are those who live in Mount Royal. They are the only ones who really in essence should be concerned about whether they like Mr. Trudeau or one of the other two candidates, or however many there are, running against him. The only persons who can vote for the leader of our party are those in the riding of Yellowknife. That is the point I am trying to make. In short, we have to weigh whether it is prudent to shorten the term to 47 days, increasing the leadership cult type of imagery that is becoming so prevalent in politics as the order of the day.
I initially made the remark that, while I was perhaps initially indifferent to this type of legislation, the more I thought about it the more I became concerned. Because we have in power today a government which shows such utter contempt, not just for Parliament but for the courts of our country. It is time we stopped giving the government the advantage of being able to put this House in still greater contempt through an unduly short campaign period during federal elections.
Let me give one or two examples of where I feel there has been a certain contempt on the part of the government. This was discussed earlier during the question period, but during the last election campaign in 1980 the present Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Marc Hamel, felt he could not hold an election earlier than February 18, say on February 11, because of the time required to carry out a completely new enumeration. He suggested to the leaders, the present Prime Minister, the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the NDP that it might be all right to use the voters' list of 1979, update it and save that amount of time. In that spirit that list was used. As we know, in three ridings, particularly the riding of Spadina, that action was contested. A defeated candidate filed as a petition a notice stating he felt the provisions of the Canada Elections Act had in fact been breached. He asked that the election declaring Peter Stollery the member of Parliament for that riding be declared void.


Ian Deans: You mean Senator Stollery.

July 3, 1981
Canada Elections Act


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Now Senator, that is true. The hon. member for Hamilton Moutain is constantly coming to my assistance and making these points abundantly clear for all hon. members.
The government was faced with a petition which was before the High Court of Justice in Ontario. The first response of the government was to cause the Department of Justice to move on behalf of the respondents-the present Senator Stollery; Mr. Lesley Singer, the returning officer; and Jean-Marc Hamel, the Chief Electoral Officer. The first response of the government was to move to quash the entire petition. The government wanted there to be no question about illegality or irregularity in the election of its favourite son in Spadina, the present Senator Stollery. In that context the government went before Mr. Justice Hughes and, in a 23-page judgment, he found that on all counts the respondents were wrong and dismissed their application to have the petition quashed.
The net effect of that was that a new court had to be constituted-called an elections court-which would consider whether the election in Spadina riding should be declared void. It was structured from an act which was passed many years ago to permit Parliament to deal with this type of issue in an impartial way because, as we know, soon after confederation one case after another was brought into this House. Elections were being disputed for various reasons. At that time it was up to the House of Commons to decide if those who were purporting to sit as members could carry on sitting as members. It was decided that a new act should be passed to allow a court to be properly constituted to decide that type of issue outside the House. That is the process which was in place.
However, by every delaying tactic conceivable the government frustrated the court hearing this matter. Constantly the petitioner said he wanted his day in court. He believed the former member for Spadina was not sitting as a result of a valid election and that his election should have been declared void, but he could not get before the court.
Finally, in May a date was set for the special court to hear the case in Spadina. That date was September 14, 1981. What happened? The Prime Minister-the emperor, as most call him-said he would have no part of that, that he would appoint his favourite son to the Senate, which under the House of Commons Act automatically means that the seat is declared vacant, and that then he would have his assistant, Mr. Coutts, contest the nomination and hopefully win it, and go on to hopefully win the byelection. He showed absolute contempt for the court which has been constituted to hear this matter on September 14 and contempt for this House, which is supposed to have responded to the decision of that court when it arrived at its verdict.
There are two other cases, one in Scarborough Centre and one in Guelph. Exactly the same scenario is in place. At the request of the government in each instance the Department of Justice asked that these cases not be proceeded with until the trial case in Spadina was heard and decided. The government has succeeded to date in frustrating three petitions which were supposed to go forward in order to decide whether three
members in this House were properly elected. We find now that when a date is finally set to decide whether Spandina was a proper election the government has frustrated the matter once again by having that seat declared vacant so that the trial can be avoided. I feel that that type of thing is contemptible.
If can see why the government is so concerned. If it permitted a court to adjudicate in the case of Spadina and it it was found that in fact the election was void, that would mean every member in this House, including the Prime Minister and every member who sits in thb cabinet, is sitting here on a mere technicality. The technicality is that nobody in the respective ridings filed petitions within the time limit to seek court decisions declaring their elections void.


Mr. Chenier:: Why don't you resign?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The government obtained power through one of the most deceitful elections in Canadian history. It is retaining power by frustrating any court in this country examining the election process and deciding if the elections were illegal in the first place.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Be a model and resign yourself, Sine. Show us.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Old foghorn over there-


Walter David Baker: Groucho Marx.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Groucho Marx had a little humour about him, but not old foghorn. He says, "Resign". Let him resign.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: You are the one talking.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is his colleague's seat which is being contested.
I am only trying to heighten the awareness of how far this government will go to cling to power once it has secured power. To go the next step and to allow this government a 47-day campaign in the hope that it can retain power would be to the detriment of all Canadians. It is something we in this House have to stand and resist or we will find that it will not just be the emperor who will continue to cling, as he indicated today, but that the "Prince of Wales" is already in motion to take over the throne should the emperor decide to step down at some future time.
I can well understand the anxiety of all hon. members opposite who hope one day they themselves will get into the Senate, only to see that they have been outmanoeuvred by the person they all love so much, Mr. Coutts of the Prime Minister's Office, who has done so much over the years for each and every one of them.


Walter David Baker: Poor Charlie Caccia.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Poor Charlie from Davenport. In any event, we will look after Spadina as best we can. What I am saying is, let us not make it any easier for the emperor to rule this country in his autocratic way. The fact is that every Canadian is suffering as a result of the last election, and the quicker we can remove him from office, the better.
July 3, 1981


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: On division.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, July 7, 1980, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill S-6, to amend the Two-Price Wheat Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will allow the minister to speak first.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am grateful to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, as happened yesterday, the hon. member for Vegreville will prepare his notes as I develop my reasoning.


Walter David Baker: Who prepared yours?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Somebody else, but I made them my own last night. I have a short version and a long one. Which would you gentlemen prefer?


Walter David Baker: The long one. I love to hear you speak.


Jean-Luc Pepin: All right, and I will give a chance to the hon. member to go and establish contact.
This is the fourth time, Mr. Speaker, that Bill S-6 has come before this House. The previous occasions were June 6, June 27, and July 7, 1980.


Walter David Baker: It is truly a wonderful bill.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes. Hon. members opposite used those occasions to discuss a wide range of grain questions, such as the
Two-Price Wheat Act
international wheat agreement, the weather conditions at any particular time, the supply of hopper cars and the development of the Prince Rupert grain terminal. I might mention that these and other issues, such as compensation for the partial embargo on sales to the U.S.S.R. and other grain matters, are at this time well in hand. So today, Mr. Speaker, I hope my friends across the floor are willing to deal with the bill itself.
Bill S-6 was passed in the other place on June 3, 1980. I would also underline for the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that this bill is identical to one introduced by the previous government as C-7 on October 18, 1979. So presumably the opposition members will have no objection to their own work.


Walter David Baker: It was a much better government, though.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Bill S-6 is a simple, straightforward bill designed to repeal the Two-Price Wheat Act of 1974 which is no longer necessary as it has been superseded by other programs and domestic arrangements for the pricing of wheat for food. The purpose of the bill is to remove any obligations on the government to make subsidy payments in accordance with the provisions of the Two-Price Wheat Act in light of changes made in the domestic pricing system in December, 1978.
I must underline that since that time the wheat producer has been receiving the equivalent return from the marketplace. So he is not being deprived; the payments are now collected from the marketplace instead of from the government. The new domestic pricing scheme was introduced in 1978 by establishing, through regulations under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the minimum and maximum price for wheat sold for human consumption in Canada.
To conclude the chronology of events, in May, 1980 Senator Hazen Argue, Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, announced the range would be a minimum of $5 and a maximum of $7 a bushel for wheat sold for human consumption, with no upper limit for durum wheat. Accordingly, I repeat, wheat producers have not been disadvantaged by the new arrangements and have been receiving prices in line with the international market in view of the higher range announced just over a year ago.
This is where the short version might end, Mr. Speaker, but I see the hon. member for Vegreville has not returned so I will continue to put information on the record for historians of the future who might want to use these notes for learned essays leading to MA and Ph.D degrees.
Let me continue to explain the relationship of the government's domestic wheat pricing program to other grain policies and programs. Canada has for some time had a policy of setting domestic prices for wheat for human consumption in order to provide some stability in prices to both consumers and producers. This is going to be my theme, that these policies protect both producer and consumer. Producers have a right to a fair return for their efforts, while consumers should not have to face rapidly rising costs over a short period of time for a staple food such as bread. These are difficult objectives, the

July 3, 1981
Two-Price Wheat Act
combination of the interests of producer and consumer, to meet when the product you are dealing with is wheat which has experienced volatile pricing movements in recent years due to large changes in supply from year to year in many parts of the world.
I believe we have developed in Canada an enviable package of programs to assist both producers and consumers. This group of programs and policies put in place by the federal government demonstrate a commitment to provide producers with a fair return for their product.
1 think 1 will dispense with the following page or two of my notes because they describe in some detail the existing systems for the protection of wheat producers, namely initial payments, the western grain stabilization program, crop insurance and so on. These programs also assist consumers by helping ensure adequate grain production and, combined with the two-price wheat program, provide important protection to consumers. My notes then go into the usefulness of a maximum and minimum price in looking at the situation as it exists today, and asking the question: Will such protection continue to be necessary?
World demand for grain is expected to be particularly strong during the 1980s. World population and incomes will continue to rise as will the use of grain for food and livestock. The world demand experienced in the last three years exceeded production even though production was at record levels. As we all know, stocks have been reduced. This year the prospects for crops are favourable, both in Canada and elsewhere.
While increased production will undoubtedly occur, it is unlikely that it will increase at the desired rate in all countries or regions of the world, and swings in markets can be expected. My notes make the point that stability will never be completely reached, that present circumstances will lead again to market swings, particularly in prices. In such a market, prices can be expected to fall when production exceeds consumption and stocks build up. Prices could decline to such an extent that producers receive less than a fair price for their product. Although it is difficult to ensure stable prices for grain that is exported-and the Western Grain Stabilization Act helps offset these variations-a fair return can be set by the federal government for sales to the domestic market. A minimum price has been established since 1967 in Canada for wheat sold for domestic human consumption.
On the other hand, when consumption exceeds production stocks are drawn down and prices rise. Recent experience has shown that such price increases can be rapid and rise to relatively high levels. In this situation, consumers are faced with rapidly rising costs. Consequently, it is desirable that the extremes of potential price increases be limited for consumers. Such is currently the case in Canada where a maximum price has existed since the early 1970s for wheat sold for human consumption. The original concept of a two-price system for wheat was implemented in the late 1960s and embodied in legislation for a period of seven years beginning in 1973. On May 26, 1980, Senator Argue announced the policy would be continued for at least another two years.
As was promised during the last election campaign, the federal government is maintaining a minimum-maximum range of prices for Canadian bread and pastry wheats to protect both producers and consumers from wide price fluctuations. Originally, in 1973 the federal government combined the floor price for producers with a consumer subsidy payable when export wheat prices were above $3.25 a bushel. My parliamentary secretary fully explained the details of this program to the House one year ago when Bill S-6 was introduced for second reading. Authority for payments under this program was provided by the Two-Price Wheat Act enacted in July, 1974. A maximum subsidy of $1.75 per bushel was established, which in turn sets the minimum domestic price of $5 a bushel for producers of bread wheat.
a (1440)
In the case of durum wheat, the domestic price was allowed to vary between $3.25 per bushel and $5.75 per bushel. The subsidy was payable between $5.75 and $7.50 per bushel.
Under these subsidy arrangements, the government made payments to the benefit of consumers totalling $396 million between 1973 and 1978. During the period that this policy has been in effect since 1967, the government has made payments to producers of approximately $76 million. There have been periods when consumers were assisting producers, from August 1, 1969 through to 1972, to the extent of some $40 million. The producers have been assisting consumers in various periods from 1973 to date in the amount of approximately $108 million. There is always a discussion on who gets most, the producers or the consumers. I thought it would be useful to put down these figures. Presumably their interpretation can be challenged.
Therefore, it can be seen that the program has provided assistance to consumers and to producers. The total producer benefit up to the end of the last crop year was about $116 million, according to the grain group, and the total cost was about $108 million, with taxpayers being responsible for the majority of the assistance being provided to consumers.
In the fall of 1978, as one of a number of measures designed to restrain expenditures, the government decided to terminate subsidy payments made under the Two-Price Wheat Act of 1974. At the same time, a new domestic pricing scheme was introduced by establishing through regulations under the Canadian Wheat Board Act a minimum price of $4 per bushel and a maximum price of $5 per bushel for wheat sold for human consumption. The minimum price for durum was also raised to $4 per bushel, but the maximum was left at $7.50 per bushel. This action continued to provide a minimum price for the benefit of producers and to protect consumers against wheat prices rising above $5 per bushel or durum prices rising above $7.50 per bushel.
Just over one year ago the government decided to raise these levels to improve returns to wheat producers. As I said before, in May 1980 Senator Argue announced that these ranges would be amended to a maximum of $5 per bushel for wheat for human consumption and a maximum of $7 per bushel with
July 3, 1981

no upper limit for durum wheat. These levels continue in effect today and apart from short periods the market has remained within this band. It is currently at about the middle of the range.
All of this is to say that the purpose of Bill S-6 is to remove any obligation for the government to pay the subsidy in light of changes made in the domestic pricing system in December, 1978. For the benefit of students of wheat policies I have put on the record the period before 1974 and the period since 1978.
The repeal of the 1974 bill will not adversely affect producers who have been receiving their returns from the market. Both consumers and producers are receiving protection under the new pricing arrangements. Passage of the bill will formalize the arrangements which have been in effect for some time. I urge hon. members to support the bill.
There is a technicality of which Mr. Speaker must be made aware in order to deal with it later. When we decide to go into Committee of the Whole I have an amendment to present. Bill S-6 which is before us proposes that the 1974 act be repealed on the earlier of a day to be fixed by proclamation and July 31, 1980. We have a problem. In view of the delay in dealing with the bill, I wish to propose an amendment to clause 2 as follows:
That Bill S-6 be amended by striking out lines 10 to 20 on page 1 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"The said Act is repealed on a day to be fixed by proclamation".
I just wanted to indicate that hopefully we will pass this amendment because of the delay in passing the bill itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps something should be done to regularize the speech we just heard from the Minister of Transport. I was puzzled when Your Honour called on him, but it took a moment or two to check the record. Bill S-6 was originally moved in his name, the debate has gone on, and for the minister to speak later normally would mean the closing of the debate. However, Your Honour did not use the words required in Standing Order 37(3), which read:
In all cases Mr. Speaker shall inform the House that the reply of the mover of the original motion closes the debate.
Since there are other hon. members who wish to speak, I suggest that the House agree retroactively that there was unanimous consent for the minister to have made this speech.
While I am on my feet on a point of order, I might also point out that this motion has been before us for some time. It calls for the bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I believe that is the desire of those interested, so the minister's reference to a possible amendment is something to be looked at in that committee.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a problem because I did not speak on the bill when it was first introduced. I am a first-time participant.
Two-Price Wheat Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the minister knows the rules, and if he reads the rules, moving a motion or tipping one's hat is the same as if one made a speech.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the process suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to alleviate this problem is obviously agreeable to the minister and certainly agreeable to us. We would commend it to the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as well as the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton for raising the point. I might indicate, lest in the future what I say now might be considered by other occupants of the chair, that there is some doubt in my mind as to whether or not this matter is clear. Certainly in Beau-chesne's fifth edition it is not perfectly clear that the minister is to be considered to have been answering in reply and that accordingly the debate is closed. I think it is better for the Chair to accept the suggestion of both hon. members and to seek the unanimous consent of the House to the effect that the minister's speech did not close debate on the bill. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Carried. Before recognizing the hon. member for Vegreville, I might mention that if the minister wishes to proceed in the manner he suggested, I would have to seek the unanimous consent of the House for the purposes of moving to Committee of the Whole. I think the perfectly good answer was given to him by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in that he could proceed to effect his amendment at committee stage. That is my understanding of where we are at currently.


Walter David Baker: That is correct.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, just to set the record straight, I was not under the impression that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) would be closing the debate. As a matter of fact, I think we were all looking forward to his participation in the debate. It was clearly within that understanding. However cognizant we should be of the observation of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I simply yielded the floor to hear the minister because some of the things I have to say could very well have a direct bearing upon some of the things he has or has not done.
At the outset the minister made two points with which I agree. First, he indicated that the bill has the effect of relieving the government of approximately $200 million worth of liability without the amendment, which really advances the termination date of the two-price system and the obligations provided by the government to July 31, 1980 from November 30, 1978. If this bill were not passed the government would be obligated to pay the difference between $3.25 a bushel and $5 a bushel, which would amount to $1.75, on wheat which was used for domestic human consumption during the period December 1, 1978 to July 31, 1980.

July 3, 1981
Two-Price Wheat Act
The Minister also made another observation with which I agree. I think it should be repeated and re-echoed in this chamber and, indeed, throughout the country. The fact of the matter is that in the over-all scheme of things the two-price wheat system has been a subsidy to the consumer at the expense of the producer, on balance. That should not be forgotten. I am not sure whether that was the real intention of the two-price wheat legislation. I believe there was a disposition at that time on the part of the government to provide for a realistic price range for the production of wheat for domestic human consumption to reflect somewhat a price which would be commensurate with the cost of production. While there was no specific legislative mechanism to provide for a regular adjustment or indexation to reflect increases in the cost of production, I think there was a moral commitment on the part of the then minister, in effect a moral obligation, to adjust that price range on an annual basis which would bear some relationship to the cost of production.
There are several reasons why this bill should not be allowed to pass and I would like to enunciate at least four of them. This bill should not be passed until we receive a clearer commitment from the government, or some direction, on a number of urgent and important policy areas. These are policy areas which require attention now. We in this House are somewhat deprived of an opportunity to deal with questions related to the Canadian Wheat Board and to agriculture.
I know the minister is in a somewhat awkward position, having to answer in the House for the senator in the other place. There is no way he can always be cognizant of what that minister is doing since he is a senator. He does not have the pressures and responsibilities which other ministers have. He travels a great deal and does a lot of spouting off at the mouth. We hear a constant litany of statements which he makes, yet we do not have the opportunity to question him. Thus, we must question the Minister of Transport, who does quite well, by and large. At least he attempts to clarify the questions.
Nevertheless, the fact that this bill has been kicking around the House of Commons since June 6, 1980-and possibly even earlier than that-is an indication that matters with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board and to western agriculture are not much of a priority with this government. As a result, we members who represent ridings in the Canadian Wheat Board area will seize upon the opportunity to raise a number of important issues not only directly related to this bill but also to other agricultural issues.
I wish to place on record four or five major concerns I have with the lack of direction which this government is taking on a number of issues. First of all, there is the two-price wheat system itself. As I said earlier, in my view the government has broken faith with the producers of Canada. I believe it has really violated the intended spirit of the Two-Price Wheat Act.
As the minister confirmed today, it has, in effect, been a subsidy to the consumers at the expense of the producers. There has been a maximum price level locked in under this system for a period of seven years. How many union agents
bargaining on behalf of their union would want to lock in a maximum wage over a period of seven years? It would just not be done. Yet, in effect, that is what was done when the Two-Price Wheat Act came into effect. The maximum level had not been adjusted until the announcement made by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board on May 26, 1980 which took effect on August 1, 1980.
There has been no effective mechanism to provide for an annual increase, both in the minimum and/or maximum levels, to reflect the cost of production, as I mentioned earlier. That is certainly something which should have been included in this legislation. While it was not included there was, indeed, a moral commitment, a suggestion made by the minister at that time, that there would be regular consultation and that those figures would be adjusted on an annual basis to reflect increases in the cost of production.
I would like to turn to the debate which took place on October 29, 1974 as reported at page 865 of Hansard. At that time it was brought out by a certain individual, the hon. member for Vegreville, that:
-we are dealing with a legislative measure which is supposed to give some protection and some stability to the wheat producers of the country, certainly now is the opportune time to build into the legislative mechanism some protective features which would offset the spiralling costs which face the western wheat producers.
We know, for example, that the two-price system which has been in effect for some time now has already cost the producers something in the order of $15 million.
The producers have always been behind in relation to what should be considered a fair return.
If we go back and look at the first four months of the crop year 1979-80 and if we look at the price level on the international markets and the maximum level which was provided under this bill, we will find that producers have provided a subsidy to the extent of about $22 million to $25 million, roughly a million dollars a week. This was done because the maximum price was locked in at the $5 level while international prices were substantially higher. This was really a most unfair situation.
I do not believe that when we accepted the principle of the two-price wheat system we expected a built-in producer subsidy to the consumer for a period of seven years. 1 say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I regret very much the government did not make a retroactive adjustment to reflect the substantial gap which existed between the price level on the international market and the price level being commanded for domestic wheat for human consumption at that time.
When our party was in government we made plans to put in place an adjustment mechanism which would have raised the minimum price to $6 per bushel. That would have had the effect of putting an additional $25 million into the hands of the producers. This government failed to recognize that inequity. Rather, it sat on the situation, did nothing, and in May it made an announcement that it would modify the price range establishing a minimum of $5 and a maximum of $7 per bushel.
July 3, 1981

Since the New Democratic Party and the Liberals combined forces to defeat our government back in December it has cost the wheat producers of Canada approximately $50 million. The maximum price of $5 which was established in 1973 was never adjusted, notwithstanding the fact that international prices were as much as $2 per bushel more on many occasions. The producers have really been taken to the cleaners. We now have another maximum established at $7 with no provision for a regular adjustment.
It is rather interesting to note that in the case of durum, there is no maximum. The sky is the limit. In the case of wheat for domestic human consumption, the red spring wheat, there is a maximum. I suggest to Your Honour that the minister should seriously consider removing that maximum figure, that maximum limit. The minimum price is now set at $5 per bushel. 1 believe that it should be at least $6. Of course, most of my thoughts on this particular bill go back to a year ago because that is when I first wrote some notes. At that time, I thought that $6 would have been a fair and realistic minimum price because it could be substantiated by the fact that there have been increases in the cost of production which could back up that kind of adjustment. For example, if one looks at the increases in the major components for the production of grain from 1973 to last year, it becomes clear, I suggest, that prices would be much higher now. Fertilizer prices were increased by about 115 per cent or 120 per cent. Chemicals increased 168 per cent. In both cases over the past year, I would say there has been another additional increase of perhaps 20 per cent to 25 per cent.
Considering fuel prices, for example, thanks to this government, diesel fuel prices have doubled since this government has taken over office. There has been a doubling of fuel prices. That, too, is a component which must be reflected as a component in the cost of production. If one were to look at $6 as a minimum, one would be looking at increasing that minimum by about 85 per cent over the period since 1974 when it was established at $3.25 per bushel. Therefore, an 85 per cent increase over that period of time is certainly not exorbitant. As a matter of fact, if one looks at the crop production index over the period of 1974 to 1980, one finds it was about 105 per cent. That was the increase in the cost of production for cereal crops. I suggest to Your Honour that there has probably been an additional 20 per cent or 25 per cent increase in that figure over the last year.
We do not have a realistic price range. In my view, we should not have a maximum limit. Of course, we do not have a mechanism for adjusting the price levels to reflect the cost of production. Hence, we are going to continue a situation wherein the producer will be continually subsidizing the consumer. That is really why we find this two-price system unsatisfactory-
The Senator in the other place makes quite a bit of noise about the fact that the Canadian wheat producers have received significantly less than if there had been no price
Two-Price Wheat Act
ceiling. This amounts to a consumer subsidy at the expense of the farmer, Mr. Argue stated. Well, the Senator in the other place is supposed to be acting in the best interests of the producer. I mean, that is his job. We have people here who are ministers of consumer affairs whose responsibility it is to look after the interest of the consumer. However, the basic responsibility of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is to ensure that the producers of Canada get a fair and equitable return for the production of their grain and for-


Jean-Luc Pepin: He works the whole of Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and for the production of the grain for their efforts. There should be no question about that. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) shakes his head in the negative. I cannot imagine what-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Every minister works for the whole of Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, that is very good. The minister works for the whole of Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Producers and consumers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sure the minister devotes more attention to working for the interests of transport than for the interests of, say-


Jean-Jacques Blais: Supply and services.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, supply and services. Thank you, Mr. Minister. If he does not, then he should be looking for another job.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I work harder for him than anyone else.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is the point.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Canadian Wheat Board is an institution which acts as a custodian for the producers. I mean that the job of the Canadian Wheat Board is to get the best price possible for the farmers and to ensure that there is a regularized delivery system, a good delivery system, to ensure that the markets are always pursued, that we have an ever-expanding and increasing flow of grain to both domestic and international markets, and to get the best price for the producer. That is the minister's responsibility. If it is not, then, by golly, we have the wrong man in that slot.
I have talked here about the fact that the wheat producers have been denied a fair price for their wheat for domestic human consumption. It is really interesting to note that there are only two commodities which come to my mind that are produced in this country and that command less than the world price. They are both products of western Canada. I am speaking of oil and wheat. Textiles, shoes, and other products on the domestic market command a higher price than in the international market. The same is true with manufactured goods. Why do we have this continual discrimination? The oil subsidy which has been provided by the people of Alberta in terms of selling oil at far below the world price, at 41 per cent

July 3, 1981
Two-Price Wheat Act
of the world price, has amounted to billions and billions of dollars. It is over $40 billion.


An hon. Member:: If you want to-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sorry. I did not hear what the hon. member said. However, I am sure that it was intelligent. If it was intelligent, I am sure that he will engage in the debate so that we can hear precisely what he has to say.
The same thing is true with the initial payments. This minister has seen fit to break with tradition and not announce the initial payment level, as has been done previously under a former Liberal minister. As a result, producers were at a loss to know what to plant this spring. They needed some direction. Surely, because the minister is in constant touch with members of the Canadian Wheat Board, he is in a better position to advise what sort of price range will be in effect. But now we do not have a price range established. We can only surmise, from what we read in the press, that the initial prices for wheat and other grain products will be reduced.
Mr. Argue is quoted in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix as saying that for top red spring wheat, the price will range between $4.25 and $5.35 a bushel. That is something which is potentially in the order of $1 per bushel less; yet at the same time the Senator is calling upon the producers of Canada to grow more, at least 10 per cent more, to meet the contractual commitments. At least, if he had given them some idea as to what kinds of grains would be in demand, the producers would have had a better idea as to what to produce for the market demands.
The second reason I believe we should not pass this bill until we get a satisfactory answer is the failure of this government to come up with a clear-cut program to provide for adequate rolling stock. I touched on this yesterday or earlier this week. The fact of the matter is that our grain-carrying fleet is again on the decline. In 1980 we had some 28,400 pieces of rolling stock composed of 14,400 boxcars and 14,000 hopper cars. That fleet is being reduced at the rate of 3,600 units per year. It is primarily a reduction of boxcars owing to their deterioration from long use. The fact is that on the basis of the information which has been provided by both the CNR and the CPR, we note that by 1985 the boxcars will be reduced by about 50 per cent. Instead of having 14,400 boxcars, we will have closer to 7,000.
Clearly, something has to be done. We have to have a clearcut statement of policy about the provision and the replenishment of hopper cars. Everyone who has any knowledge in the grain trade knows that we must have a program of replenishment of the rolling stock. The minister nods his head in the positive. The other day, in response to a question which I posed, he indicated that his studies and his experience suggests that we do not have to order any additional rolling stock at the present time.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Before the fall.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Grain Transportation Authority states that we need 1,300 every year. The Canadian Wheat Board advisory group suggests that we need at least 1,300 every year, and it recommended that the minister act very quickly and, as a matter of fact, pass the resolution. It reads as follows:
That the Advisory Committee to the Canadian Wheat Board urge the Government of Canada through the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board that orders be placed immediately for additional hopper cars in accordance with the requirements recommended by the Grain Transportation Authority.
The authority has recommended the purchase of 1,300 cars each year for the next four years to 1985, and approximately 900 cars per year thereafter to 1990.
There can be no doubt about that. I think they are in a position to know. The Booz-Allen report which was commissioned by the former minister, recommended that at least 1,900 cars be brought into the system annually. That was to include a factor of 15 per cent improved turn-around time. It is clear that the 1,300 cars per year is not unrealistic.
I do not believe that we will export 23 million metric tons of grain this year. At the present time we are running roughly
100,000	metric tons above last year's figure. The latest figures that I have were issued on June 10, 1981 and show our total export of grain at 18,467,000 metric tons, whereas in 1980 the figure was 18,389,000 metric tons. This year 285,000 metric tons of grain less have been moved domestically this year than last year. The total disappearance for last year was 23,882,000 metric tons, while this year it was 23,674,000 metric tons. The figure will not exceed last year's because the fleet is diminishing. Yet we are asking the producers for sufficient quantities of grain to allow us to export 30 million metric tons. It simply will not be done, Mr. Speaker.
The producers will be asked once again to build storage facilities and buy more granaries to store their grain rather than market it. We are slipping behind, and when that happens, farmers lose the incentive to produce.
If our grain transportation system becomes ineffective once again, then our ability to sell abroad will be impaired and our reputation as a reliable supplier will be impaired. This does not augur well for the total grains industry.
A lot of improvement has taken place over the last couple of years and I hope the momentum continues. It is clear that the Canadian Wheat Board can market the grain and it is clear that we can produce the grain, provided there are adequate incentives and assurances that the grain will be moved to domestic and export positions.
The third reason we should not allow the bill to pass, Mr. Speaker, is the continuing and constant threat by the railways that they will ration services in the next two or three years, particularly in the western regions. Yesterday I spoke to officials of the Canadian Wheat Board who suggested that rationing is occurring at the moment. I do not know whether the minister has another opportunity to speak, but if he has, he may want to say something about that. If such is not the case.

July 3, 1981
it would certainly please me very much if he were to set the records straight.
We alE know that this is a bargaining ploy used by the railways in an attempt to get a better rate for the movement of grain. But to hear the minister, the government House leader in the other place and other ministers of the Crown acquiesce and join in the chorus that we are going to have rationing strikes me as being irresponsible. I think that anything that adds to the speculation about rationing is not good for Canadian industry and it is certainly not good from the standpoint of potential customers abroad. To allow that sort of nonsense to be perpetrated, just brings our reputation abroad under question.
I call upon the minister to sit down with the railways in an attempt to work out some kind of proposal to get us off this kick about rationing. We know what the traffic demands are in western Canada. We know that they call for about a 70 per cent increase in the use of rail services in western Canada. We know as well that it will require huge amounts of capital-$14 billion to $15 billion over the next ten years. We know that the capacity is limited at the moment and we also know-the minister will perk up when he hears this-that the railways need more revenue from the movement of grain. It is irresponsible, however, to go out across the country and beat the drums or fan the flames on the subject of rail rationing in the western system. I urge the minister to try to bring the railroads together and to bring the provinces together in some way. This problem will not be solved by one government or one railroad but will require the co-operation and joint support of all components in the grain industry and the industrial face of western Canada.
These are the components of the problem, Mr. Speaker. What we need from the government is a plan of action. This is a national problem and it is urgent. We need answers, not more threats.
I ask the minister and his colleagues to seriously consider the question and tell the House how they are going to deal with it. We need the answers now, not six months or six years hence. If the government is going to allow the railways to continue their campaign of threats unchallenged, then I say it is going to cause a prairie fire which may be very difficult to put out. The railways have a clear responsibility.
The government also has a clear responsibility. It is in charge of putting together a national transportation program and the railways are clearly under its responsibility. It must show leadership and outline how it intends to deal with the problem.
The other day, in his usual flippant manner, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested that if we had not laughed at his concept of double-tracking, everything would be all right. We do not need that sort of double talk of double-tracking from the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting to note that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board in the other place described the Prime Minister's concept of doubletracking using existing siding, as rather foolish and farfetched.
Two-Price Wheat Act
There is a fourth reason why we should not allow this bill to be passed, Mr. Speaker. I may be transcending the rules of relevance but this is connected to the whole matter of western agriculture and western grain production. I refer to the horrendous mess made of the administration of the herd maintenance assistance program.
I can only say that the manner in which the program was administered reflects the gross incompetence of the people involved. There were several cases where severe drought conditions prevailed and producers kept their herds in good faith. Many spent huge amounts of money on feed. In some cases people qualified, yet their neighbours did not. Certain areas were designated after the original drought area was defined, but upon the designation, the producers found that they could apply for the assistance. Some applications have never been acknowledged and people could not get through to the officials on the telephone. Appeals have not been dealt with and some applications have vanished. There has been no response to petitions, letters and appeals. Three ministers are dealing with the problem, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the minister in charge of the Wheat Board-not the Minister of Transport-and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane). It has been a shuffle all around. In Alberta we can only conclude that it is another example of discrimination against the producers in one province. It seems to follow a pattern.
I hope that in his wisdom, the Minister of Transport in his effective way, will ask his colleagues to clean up the mess and get it over with. Some lapsed funds remain and if there is any doubt, the benefits should go to the producer. The government has discretionary powers and I hope that the minister will prevail upon his cabinet colleagues to review the matter and make a decison.
I conclude with one other bone of contention. It is somewhat related to the whole question of western agriculture, namely the payment of compensation arising out of support for the embargo on grain sales to Russia. Here again, the rapeseed producers have been grossly discriminated against because feed grain prices were affected.
The Minister of Agriculture has suggested he will run through the process which was followed in determining how the levels were established and why rapeseed was excluded. But the bulk of the rapeseed producers are in the province of Alberta. I say that if a case can be made for the payment of compensation to corn producers, so too can payments be made to the producers of rapeseed. There is a substitution factor. There is an interrelationship between feed grains and rapeseed meal. There can be no question about that. Prices of rapeseed declined dramatically during that period. Rapeseed producers are suffering. I would hope that as the Minister of Agriculture had a change of heart with respect to payments under the hog subsidy program, he will reconsider and add the rapeseed producers to the list of those eligible for payments of compensation under the embargo program. Then if the minister can convince his colleagues to take action on a number of these

July 3, 1981
Two-Price Wheat Act
fronts that I have talked about this afternoon, we will be glad to pass this bill.


Mr. Deniger:: Would the former minister of transport entertain a question, Mr. Speaker?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, would the former minister of transport elaborate on his third point? He objected to the bill and indicated that he felt the railways would need more revenue for the movement of grain. How would he provide that revenue?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has asked that question. I think there is a very clear case to be made for the federal government's responsibility and obligation to provide for payment of a subsidy on the basis of the differential between the statutory rate and the fair rate that would be determined, compensatory or near compensatory. I think the question is how best to distribute that. Should it be paid directly to the railways, to the producers, or should it be put into some form of bond? That is a matter for debate. But I think the government has a clear responsibility. It entered into an agreement with the CPR to provide those lower rates under statute. The statute rates should remain enshrined for the producers, but the railways obviously need sufficient revenues to move that grain. There may be some debate as to the capping of future inflationary increases. Those things are for debate. I think the government could accelerate this debate immensely if it came clean with a commitment saying that we are prepared to meet that gap. The debate could continue and probably we could reach a consensus sooner than we think.


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted another question? If the railways were given more money, is it the hon. member's contention that the purchase of rolling stock and all other related equipment should be the responsibility of the railways?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I think this could be worked out in two ways. Because a sufficient amount of the rolling stock is either owned by the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers or provinces, you could establish a rate on the basis of the rolling stock owned by the producers and or other people. That should result in a different rate. If the rate were to be established on the basis of the railroads providing the rolling stock and the locomotive power, then of course, it would command a higher rate and it would have to ensure that adequate plant and equipment is maintained and provided. Also, if the railways are to be paid a fair rate for the movement of grain, there have to be compensating guarantees to ensure that the service is provided. You can go either way, and there is some flexibility on this.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, concerning the bill we are debating this afternoon, may I say at the beginning of my remarks that whenever I notice the date of proclamation shall be retroactive at the end
of a bill, as I explained last week in the House, I get very suspicious. In the last clause of this bill, we read:
This Act shall be deemed to have come into force on December I, 1978.
When there are three years of retroactivity, there is only one answer, someone has boobed. In effect, we are repealing Section 3. This is a classic example of a serious mistake. I think the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has indicated in his remarks why the government wants the bill to be retroactive, that is, to get out of its obligations with respect to this mistake which the government made in passing the bill in the House seven years ago.
The major part of my remarks today will not be directed to the current Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin); they will be directed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board under whose jurisdiction this particular legislation comes. He is not present in this House, nor can he be, but I know he has a very intelligent staff who will be reading these comments and will pass them on to him.
What we are witnessing today in this request for amendment is a part of a whole series of mistaken and fraudulent legislation put before this House in the last ten or twelve years.
I am not accusing the government of the day or the governments of the last ten or twelve years of being deliberately fraudulent. They have simply made the mistake of listening to advisers who were wrong in 1968, who were wrong in 1945 and who were wrong in 1939. They have been wrong ever since. This fraudulent legislation, by more than a clear coincidence, seems to be funnelled to the farmers of western Canada.
The present Minister of Transport has visited western Canada in connection with a royal commission as well as on other matters. I am positive he is aware that the alienation in western Canada is not just on isolated subjects such as bilingualism, energy policy, the Constitution, and other such issues. The alienation is caused by a long series of the wrong type of help for the western farmer which has only succeeded in cutting his throat systematically and steadily. This legislation is just one small bite at the farmer's backside. That is how he looks on it.
The two-price system for wheat has been talked about for over 50 years. Every political party has talked about it, but not one has brought in a two-price system and presented it to the farmers. Every single party in this House is guilty of luring farmers into believing that they could solve a lot of their problems by giving them equality with people in the rest of the country by giving them an extra price on the small amount of wheat they sold to domestic consumers for human consumption. That fraud has been going on for 50 years. Here we are discussing amendments to free the government from financial responsibility or liability for mistakes it made seven years ago.
The hon. member for Vegreville has dealt with a series of subjects that outline some of the problems related to this bill and related to agriculture in general. I do not agree entirely with his approach to some of these problems. The differences we have are differences that are long standing and sincere in the sense we both know we can be wrong. I do not intend at
July 3, 1981

this time to go into that type of debate. What I want to do is put on the record, as the minister suggested in his opening remarks today, something for the people who read this debate, the historians who are tracking down wheat policy in the west. We must have some form of coherent discussion on the record so they know how this legislation we are dealing with today fits in.
I put the blame on the fact that our government in Canada, as well as governments of other western countries, have been the victims of wrong conclusions by top advisers. This goes back to the fact that after the Hitler war the economic advisers to the government and to large companies, such as grain companies, had a philosophy that there was no future for grain farmers. They pointed to the declining consumption of bread in western Europe, the traditional market for western world grain. They pointed to the deliberate increase in productivity in grain in western Europe and in Russia. They pointed out the growing productivity of the four grain producers of export grain, Australia, Argentina the United States and Canada. On the basis of their study of all the figures they had from the beginning of trade they concluded there would be a downward movement in world trade in grains.
That was the type of advice going to ministers of all western governments. That is the philosophy that still hangs on around this capital city of Canada in the deep, dark corners of economic units of the various departments. The facts over the last 50 years have proved them wrong. Even the politicians in the last three or four years have been saying they are wrong. We still get this philosophy which comes out from the Department of Transport. Civil servants in transport give secret briefings to the research members of all parties of this House on economics, and they are absolutely wrong.
This philosophy comes out in other forms. We hear grain companies making certain statements about how we should do things, for instance in respect of railways. The assumption made by the hon. member for Vegreville that we have to pay the railways a compensatory payment was not the approach suggested by the Hall commission which studied this intensively. The Hall commission recommended the obvious. Since all the indications are that the flood of goods coming out of western Canada in the coming decade and decades to follow will be tremendous. The job is not to cut railways out of existence but to reconsider where the railways should be and what they should carry. In grain alone they have now accepted, not the target of 20 million tonnes a year, but 30 million tonnes a year. In spite of the pessimism of the hon. member for Vegreville, they will attain this target because the railways make money when they are hauling a lot of stuff. The railways make money when they haul a lot of wheat. They make money when they realize that the volume of traffic on a fixed cost industry is what makes the bottom line increase. The railways are still following the advice of economists who believe there is no future for traffic in the west except on the main lines.
Two-Price Wheat Act
Therefore, I suggest to the Minister of Transport that he consider the Hall commission report, chapter 9, where it talks about getting at the problem in an economic way; not loading the taxpayers with costs that are unnecessary. Get the railways off their seats, get them out and get them making money by hauling more than just the few bushels of grain they are pushed to haul under the Railway Act.
When I look at the potash that is badly needed in Europe and the coal that is badly needed in Europe in the next 30 years, I realize it can only come from Alberta and Saskatchewan because we have the Churchill route. I know the United States and Canada have both agreed formally to help Europe out of its problems with regard to coal. The only place they are going to get that coal is from North Dakota, Saskatchewan and Alberta through the use of the Hudson Bay route. The tremendous tonnages of potash and coal required will make the railway lines pay and they will forget all about raising this question about Crow rates.
On this one point of what we are paying as a result of listening to this wrong type of economics, let me say in the first place that this debate was fought out after the Hitler war in the high levels of the department of agriculture in the United States and the reasonably high levels of the Department of Agriculture here in Ottawa. There was pressure put on in both countries, on the secretary of state for agriculture as well as the secretary of the treasury in the United States and in Canada, to realize that farming was a declining industry in western Canada, and that a policy should be followed to reduce production and get farmers off the farms.
This was not mentioned publicly; it was just the type of thing going on between advisers to the government and ministers. The ministers tried their level best to keep that suppressed but, as you probably know, the United States opted for controlling of agriculture. The United States spent huge sums of public money withdrawing good agricultural land, putting it into land banks and grasslands. It ran into tens of millions of acres. The United States paid their farmers for doing this. Our country resisted that. We went the other course of finding new markets for grain. This gave a lift to western agriculture which still exists. That change of direction quieted these experts down for awhile.
The government I am talking about was defeated in 1963 and a new government came in. It was taken over by this economic pressure. As a result, in 1969 and 1970 we had four bills introduced into this legislature aimed at getting rid of farmers all across Canada, not just in the west. They were aimed at getting rid of two out of every three farmers in the west and reducing the land to half, so that the one-third of the farmers left on half of the land that was left in use would make a reasonable living. All that was in the form of legislation brought into this House in 1969-70.
The worst and most notorious of this legislation was the LIFT program. It meant lower inventory for tomorrow; get the farmers out of production, in other words. In this Parliament, to its everlasting shame, that bill was put through. That bill that told farmers "if you do not do what your are told, you will

July 3, 1981
Two-Price Wheat Act
lose your right to sell your product" meant that for the first time in our history a government organization without legal authority directed farmers to get out of producing the only product they knew how to produce, or they would lose the right to sell. That LIFT program was taken up by 87 per cent of the farmers. They went along with it and went out of production. The other 13 per cent who had enough reserves to get through without selling anything that year went ahead and produced. You guessed it; in 1972 the price went up to $5 a bushel, and all these farmers were sitting there with no grain in their granaries because they had been told to get out of production by the same government which sits here now. In all fairness I think every Liberal can understand the feeling of satisfaction the farmers have, because of the type of program they were getting, that a former minister, Otto Lang, is no longer with us. There is tremendous antagonism to a government which would come into a program with force like a socialist state saying, "We have decided we want less production, and out you go".
Then there was a program to get farmers to leave their farms and go into the cities. Government ministers and parliamentary secretaries went up and down the Ottawa Valley telling farmers there was no place for them on farms in the Ottawa Valley. They said that their young daughters and young sons could go to the cities and get jobs. These farmers in the Ottawa Valley are not that stupid. They know what happens to their daughters and sons when they go to evil cities like Ottawa. That meant that the Liberal member for that particular constituency had to leave town. He went off to a safe seat down in Niagara. Knowing all these things, one would think that the Liberal rank and file would begin to put pressure on their front benches and say, "Why are you doing these things to us?"
Time rolls on. As the price went up, as I said, in 1972 to $5 and the farmers got off this low price stuff and began to grow wheat again, sure enough we dropped our long-term agreements with Russia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia and, I believe, Albania and Roumania. We dropped all those long-term agreements for our wheat because, in the reasoning of the government, since there was no market in the future, why get our farmers trying to supply the market? So surpluses built up, and then there was the period of the price wars.
Going back a step, to 1968, the government of the day in Canada agreed with the United States to abandon the international wheat agreement, which was an international cartel composed of both consumers and producers. They decided every three years what the maximum and the ceiling price would be, and they competed between those two prices.
That period of stability for which the farmers had fought so hard ended in 1968, and since that time we have got into situations where price wars have occurred. It was not very pleasant for western farmers to see their Canadian Wheat Board on two separate occasions deliberately drop the price
below the U.S. price in the hope of beating out the Americans. It did not result in that. It did not pay off because there was so much market development and, so much demand developing all over the world that the economists had not even read about it, and all this so-called surplus was soaked up. After the price dipped, it gradually came back again. That is what fooled them on this legislation. They thought that because there was no market for grain in the world because too many farmers were producing, they had to bring in legislation. They would give them a little bit, but not allow them to get anything higher than a certain amount. That is why we heard the minister quote those figures today. The way this act is worked out, up until 1978, if I heard him correctly, there was a subsidy to farmers of about $76 million, but the subsidy to consumers-that is when the farmer was losing out-was $396 million. So what we have is five or six times more subsidy going to consumers, whom the act was not supposed to benefit particularly. The act was supposed to help the farmers and provide that long talked about dream that they would have the same treatment as the manufacturers get here in eastern Canada. They get a higher than world price for domestic consumption, and the farmers thought they were going to get a little bit extra for their wheat. Instead of that, there was a subsidy to the farmers of $76 million, but most of it went to the consumers, or $396 million of it. That is why I call it fraud. To come along here today and say we want to get rid of this legislation and make this act come into effect in 1978 so we will not have to pay any obligations to these producers I think is part of a whole system of fraud.
I am not going to mention the oil fact. I think the hon. member for Vegreville was quite correct when he said that it seems very strange to westerners that even to the extent of breaking the Constitution because of pressure in Ottawa the government has to ask westerners in the oil provinces to take a price less than half the world price. The governments of the west have been fairly generous; they have offered to let us have it for 75 per cent of the world price. But all we can get out of the government here is 40 per cent. This will all change in September. The businessmen of the east have now realize that they are paying a price for not having jobs for their people. As a result, I think we will see a change come this September.
On this question of a two-price system, I think we should call this effort what it really is, namely, a mistaken effort to try to help producers which resulted primarily in a consumer subsidy. Now that it has certain obligations, the government wants to get out of them and add one more black mark to those the government has been collecting over the last 12 years.
I had a list here of all the things which have been done with the legislation over the years, but the minister covered those fairly well. I would like to go on to the principles which I think will be of some use to the government if it decides to continue this type of legislation. At the present time I think the most decent thing it could do would be to drop the legislation, say it made a mistake, pay its obligations and get out of it. However, there is some argument for us to try to keep on and see if we
July 3, 1981

cannot put up some form of two-price wheat legislation which does provide rough equity for the farmer who has to sell nearly all his wheat on the export market so that at least he gets the same smount of protection when he sells in the home market, and I refer to the same amount of protection given to the people in the protected industries here in Ontario and Quebec.
I think that would be a worth-while motive, but this legislation in its present form should not be dropped until the situation has been cleared away and the government has made its intentions clear. It certainly should not drop it until it has paid its obligations.
Getting on to other subjects about which I wanted to speak,
I would like to say just a word about the wider question of western alienation in reference to this bill. I do not hold this against the present Minister of Transport at all. I am aiming my remarks, quite frankly, at the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board in the hope that he will carry out what he has stated his intentions to be, and that is to inform the present cabinet and caucus of the Liberal party about some of the real causes of western alienation and at the same time to put forward positive, constructive proposals.
One of these proposals is to make certain the railways are aware of the recommendations of the Hall commission report. It is very clear to me that the railways are going to pay no attention to those recommendations. They have gone out of their way to try to subvert members of Parliament and the public to the view that they must have an adjustment above the Crowsnest rates for the hauling of grain. The Hall commission report refused to accept that proposal. The railways have to learn to accept it as well. They are not going to get a change in the Crow rates. Furthermore, they should look at the positive proposal in that report, namely to increase their marketing efforts and increase their volume. With a large proportion, 40 per cent, of fixed costs, every time you increase the volume you decrease the unit cost. I would think in a decade they can put those railways into running order, making money, and there will be no more talk about the Crow rates.
This has all happened before. We had a lot of pressure years ago on the Crow rate which culminated in the MacPherson report of 1958 to 1962, I believe. That report took the same position: We will pay your losses, but get out and make money. The push to get rid of the Crow rates suddenly stopped in 1966, because in the period from 1962 to 1965 there was such an increase in tonnage that the railways began to make money. When that happened in 1966, the then minister of transport, Mr. Pickersgill, got up and said never again will the Crow rates come up in this House because the figures show they are making money out of hauling grain. They had doubled their traffic in a short space of time before their costs caught up and they were ahead. I make that point because that is going to happen again. When we start moving our potash and coal out of the west, not to mention lumber, pulp and paper, gravel and other products, the railways will begin to make money, and there is no need for the public Treasury to help profitable companies such as the big railways.
Two-Price Wheat Act
I think that is the first point I would like passed on to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. He has to play his part by making certain that under the Canadian Wheat Board Act the railways do co-ordinate with the grain companies and the Wheat Board. He has to know that the railways can make more money out of hauling potash and coal, and he also has to remind them that they have obligations to haul grain under the Railway Act. If you get all those things working and the railways know you are determined to see that they do it, then they will do it. However, they are tough bargainers and this has to be remembered.
My next point is with reference to the Wheat Board. I do not think the Wheat Board can continue unprotected as it is now for much longer. When it was set up in 1935, it was a two-way board. Private marketing was allowed as well as marketing through the Wheat Board. Then in 1939 four pieces of legislation were prepared and introduced in this House to get rid of the Wheat Board. However, they were saved by the fact there was a war on and the civil service here recognized that we have an agency in place to control the price of a major commodity, namely, grain. So the board was saved as a price control mechanism during the war. After the war it was carried on as a price control mechanism until we got rid of the rules and regulations dealing with the special powers during the war.
So the Wheat Board started off as a price control mechanism, but if you read the act, it does not have the powers to control. These powers, which I will not go into in detail, do not exist but the Wheat Board has been allowed to carry on reasonably independently all during these years. There was interference with the Wheat Board by C.D. Howe. When certain grain companies were not selling, he called them in, read them the riot act, and then they would sell a little more. The only other interference until 1963 was by myself, and I explained that to the House, when I asked the Wheat Board to do certain things they were not required to do under the act, and they did that. The Wheat Board was very glad that I did interfere and got them to do things that, in their judgment, they should not have done. It turned out to be very profitable for the farmers and for the reputation of the Wheat Board.
Starting in 1968 we had another kind of interference with the Wheat Board, not reported back to this House, and it slowly lost its independence. The biggest example of that was the LIFT program. No self-respecting head of the board would carry out that program. They knew it was against the law, they had no power to do it, and so the man there resigned and went to a higher place. A new man was put in and the board had to carry out that LIFT program knowing they were doing something wrong and that they had been interfered with. Then as these price wars started, they would receive letters from the minister instructing them to be competitive. They knew what that meant: drop their price, start a price war. We thought we could remedy these sorry occasions of interference by putting in an elected advisory board to replace the old appointed advisory board. All parties in this House supported that initiative. They were supposed to be there to advise the Wheat

July 3, 1981
Business of the House
Board on policy and sales, to put forward ideas to help the marketing of grain.
Now, I want the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board to stand up for these people and give them a chance to offer input and ideas. However, on this particular legislation they were never asked for advice. It is a case of completely ignoring the very people that you set up to advise the Wheat Board. I am not an authority on the legal aspects of this, but I hear that this bill as originally passed by Parliament was changed in 1978 by order in council and the Wheat Board took over the setting of prices. I am not too sure that was a perfectly correct way of doing it. However, I would like to see the advisory group deal with these problems so they can have some input into the Wheat Board. Instead of that, I suspect the Wheat Board is putting a lot of pressure on the advisory board as to how they should think and act.
I could go on for some time on this subject, Mr. Speaker. It used to be that it was talked about in this House a great deal. However, I see it is close to four o'clock, so may I call it four o'clock?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if the government House leader could indicate his intentions with respect to the legislative program we will be dealing with on Monday and Tuesday, if he can.


Yvon Pinard: My hon. colleague knows well that it is difficult for me to specify the business for Tuesday since we have agreed among the House leaders to meet at 1.30 p.m. on Monday to deal with a reasonable package for the rest of the week. In so far as Monday is concerned, I announced yesterday that we were to go on with Bill S-6 and Bill C-12 but there is a slight change. The intention is to go on with second reading of Bill S-6 and if we complete that on Monday, we will follow with Bill C-67 and then Bill C-53.
So that is the order of business for Monday. This is subject to change if, following our meeting on Monday, we all agree on something different. However, we will definitely meet on Monday to talk about the business for the rest of the week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister whether he will look at Bill C-60, to which there is a Senate amendment, to see whether that might be dealt with some day next week?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I will look at that. I suspect the hon. member will put it on his list for the meeting on Monday.
[ Translation]


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
Items Nos. 18 and 22 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is agreement that we will consider Bill C-225.

[ Translation]


CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General) moved:: That Bill C-225, to promote profit-sharing by the employees in business, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to launch the debate in second reading of Bill C-225, to promote profitsharing by employees in business. The principle of this bill is very simple. Employees can contribute usefully to the management of corporations and when they do so, we shall all benefit from the ensuing increase in productivity. To this end, the bill promotes participation in management.
For the information of hon. members, I shall give an outline of the main provisions of Bill C-225, which will amend the Canada Business Corporations Act. First it provides, in the case of a corporation with over 100 employees, for a class of shares to be held exclusively by the employees of the corporation. This will make these employees directly interested in the performance of their corporation. A thriving corporation, Mr. Speaker, brings benefits to its employees and to the economy of the country as a whole. Certain members may wonder why this bill covers only corporations with over 100 employees. The reason for this, Mr. Speaker, is that the others already offer some kind of incentive with ownership participation. Indeed, such companies are sometimes established by a group of promoters who each hold a share in the company. However, the attraction of this provision resides mostly in the fact that successful corporations will expand, thrive and eventually have over 100 employees.
I am thinking for instance about Performance Sailcraft Ltd., a company from my own town. Its beginnings were very modest. At first, some encouragement was provided for the employees in the form of profit-sharing agreements. Today, Performance Sailcraft Ltd. enjoys an excellent reputation for its magnificent craft, the Laser, and has several plants and hundreds of employees. This shows the success of this pro-
July 3, 1981

gram. Other members may wonder why this bill provides for a special class of shares for these employees. There are many reasons for this, Mr. Speaker, the first being to provide more stability in the value of these shares, which would be held only by employees and could not be bought or sold for short term speculation. From the point of view of the corporation, this also ensures a stable source of investment capital which would not be subject to the fluctuations of the stock market. The second reason is that these would be preferential or ordinary shares, depending on the formula chosen, with the employees being entitled to receive dividends before they are paid to other shareholders.
That provision gives priority to the employee over the simple shareholder. The employees are the lifeblood of the business and this provision confirms it. Finally, that special class of shares would allow the corporation to pay dividends to its employees by issuing new shares instead of paying out cash. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the burden of dividend payments becomes that much lighter and the number of shares held by employees that much greater. In these days of high rates of interest, that type of corporate financing which allows the company to retain its profits through the issue of new shares to its employees is by far preferable to any other form of financing, such as the issue of new shares on the general market or borrowing on the money market at extremely high rates of interest.
May I give an example of such a plan, that of The Shawini-gan Engineering Co. Ltd. of Montreal. For a long time its employees have held shares as part of their fringe benefits, which is an excellent incentive since their salaries depend on the company's balance sheet. The performance of the business and what the employee makes are one and the same thing.
Experiments along those lines in the United States and elsewhere reflect the advantages of such agreements. A number of companies have noticed that this measure has cut down the rate of absenteeism. Fewer employees leave their employer which reduces the very costly rate of turnover and the need to find replacements. Waste goes down and the quality of production improves. Better still, new channels of communications are opened because the employees make suggestions on ways to improve working methods. For the Canadian branches of multinational corporations this procedure can also prove to be one way of regaining control over our economy since the employees are the new shareholders of the company.
The second significant feature of Bill C-225, Mr. Speaker, is that it provides for the presence of two employees on the board of directors of the company. That is a new element which derives from the success of Mitbestimmung-that is co-management-in West Germany. Co-management is another way of acknowledging that the employees can do a lot to ensure the efficient operation of the business, confirming their dual role of shareholders and employees, and enabling them to have
Profit-sharing by Employees
their say in decisions which affect them. Besides, having those two employees sit on the board of directors might be a temporary expedient until such time as the employees hold enough shares to elect their own representatives to the board in the same way as the other shareholders. Those managers-employees take some of the mystery out of the corporate operations. It is one way for the employees to keep abreast of its productivity and share in the decision-making process. That is all the more important since the Canadian employees are left out in the cold when decisions are taken thousands of miles away in the international board rooms of some of our major companies. The bill will correct that situation and, I hope, improve the quality of decisions. When someone mentions the presence of employees on the board of directors, we are immediately reminded of the Chrysler Corporation which last year called upon United Auto Workers President, Doug Fraser, to join its board. That was an excellent move which will no doubt benefit this financially troubled car maker. I do regret, however, that the corporation waited until it was in financial straits before making such a good move.
As far as this bill is concerned, I did not specify how the two employee-directors would be appointed nor how the change would take place. I think it is best to leave that up to each individual corporation and its employees. However, corporations could comply with this provision by extending the membership of their board of directors. One of the objectives of this measure is to widen the decision-making base and to this end there is no doubt that an expanded board would be an asset. The choice of employee-directors is also left up to employees and corporations. Periodic elections would, however, ensure their integrity. The only provision dealing with the selection of employee-directors contained in Bill C-225 would allow the board to fill a vacancy by way of an appointment so that its work would not be disturbed by an unexpected vacancy. Some members may also wonder about the unions' role in all this. The first time the Federal Republic of Germany passed legislation on co-management, some observers were concerned that unions would find themselves in conflict of interest situations. These fears were of course unwarranted, as experience has shown. Unions continued to elect their own representatives who are responsible for negotiating salaries and working conditions. Employees elected to the board of directors other representatives responsible for the over-all management of the corporation. Even a thorough search would likely not reveal any conflict of interest.
.The bill will have a positive effect on labour-management relations in that it will lessen the negative aspects of labour relations. Too often, nowadays, unions and corporations find themselves involved in long and bitter strikes, such as the one at United Aircraft in Longueuil, or plant shutdowns. These disputes are costly and leave scars that can take years to heal. Some in fact never heal and the company has to close down leaving its employees out of work. In such cases, everyone

July 3, 1981
Profit-sharing by Employees
loses, the company, the employees and the people in general. This bill will therefore reduce that type of conflicts by promoting team spirit and improving relations with employees.
Why do we need such a bill? Allow me to say a few words about the legislation now in effect and its application to profit-sharing by employees and to point out why it is no longer adequate. Reference is made to profit-sharing plans in sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act. Those sections set forth the various types of plans, but such particulars are unimportant in this short statement. Briefly, employers are authorized to pay part of their profits in profit-sharing plans, their contributions being deductible for income tax purposes. However, Mr. Speaker, this provision applies especially to pension or superannuation funds and is not meant to improve productivity. It is deficient in several respects, Mr. Speaker, and I think the bill I introduced will promote better understanding between employer, and employees rather than encourage savings.
At the present time, profit-sharing schemes do not make it possible for corporations to invest in their own shares. Although theoretically they are allowed to do so, few of them do and as a result investments in a great many profit-sharing schemes are made in other securities. In the case of small businesses, most profit-sharing schemes are substitutes to pension plans. Their main purpose being to provide employees with an income after retirement rather than to increase their profit-sharing. I suggest, therefore, that the time has come for us to re-examine those tax provisions dealing with profit-sharing. I hope other hon. members will introduce amendments to favour a greater share in profit by employees and make it possible for them to acquire shares.
Mr. Speaker, we could put forward many other arguments in favour of this bill, but as we are pressed for time, I should like to hear what other members have to say about this. In conclusion, I should like to add that I have collected much material on profit-sharing schemes in several other countries, which I will gladly share with hon. members when this bill comes before our Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for a more detailed study.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette). I am in support of the principle of this bill and I would like to say a few words with respect to it. I do so on the grounds that the parliamentary secretary asked for the opinions of her colleagues on this matter. I assume she meant her colleagues on all sides of the House. I note that the New Democratic Party is represented in considerable numbers today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Twice as many as you have.


Walter David Baker: I am sure they will have something to say about this bill as well, since the purpose of it is important. It is to promote greater participation by corporate employees in the profits and management of corporations. In the participative model which is presented in this bill, and there could be a variety of models, the employees of a corporation with over 100 employees are enabled to acquire shares on the one hand and, on the other, adequate representation for employees on the board of directors would be ensured so that they would have some part in corporate decision-making.
What this bill really says, and what it is saying quite clearly, is that not only do shareholders, the investors in a company, the proprietors so-called, have a share in the prosperity of the company and the work which it might do, but the person who works on the line, in the shop or in the office has exactly the same interest in the maintenance of that company. That does not just include the appropriate membership in a union which may represent the workers at that particular shop, but goes far beyond that. There is a necessity, indeed a requirement, for those people, if they are to realize the full ambit of their work in that organization, to have some say in the direction in which the company may be headed. The workers have a stake in the future of the business and that stake goes beyond just having a job. In effect it means taking part in the decisions which will affect how the job is being done and what effect it will have on the company.
I will not comment on the detail of the bill. That is something which a committee might deal with, if the subject matter ever reaches a committee. If the hon. member's colleagues do not follow their usual practice of talking out their own members' bills-and I hope they will not do that in this case, in fact, I pray they will not-then this matter can go to committee for further study.
As to the special categories of shares, those are matters which can be worked out in the committee. The principle of this bill is clear. If it is passed, then we will have advanced the case against the two solitudes which seem to exist in Canada with respect to the relationship between employers and employees. The parliamentary secretary mentioned a number of unfortunate work stoppages. Over the years it seems we have adopted a confrontational approach which perhaps grew out of necessity-indeed, it did grow out of necessity and neglect on the part of many employers. Both employers and workers have a stake in the future of business. All of them together, and all of us together, have a stake in the future of the country. If we are to advance ourselves in competition with trading nations, then I think we must adopt, or at least look into, some of the commitments which those major factors in Canadian commercial life have heretofore dealt with in solitude. I regret that the Canadian Labour Congress withdrew from the triumvirate arrangements. It may have had reason to but it is still a matter of regret.
If we are to advance in labour, management and ownership, the workers and the government must realize in some way that an element of partnership must exist. This means that one partner must not tread on the other. It is a good thing that we
July 3, 1981

look at this bill. I think we should also look at tax incentives. I happened to have the privilege of being minister of national revenue and I wish to tell the parliamentary secretary that within that department there is the expertise to come up with programs and plans to provide for tax incentives, incentives which would move business in this direction. I think that there is a feeling among Canadian workers that their stake in their jobs is greater than it ever was before. If there is ever an indication of the importance of the worker in corporate decision-making, it is in the presence of the union leader on the board of directors of the company, as the hon. member has said, that company which is having difficulty, and all of us hope that it will survive in the end, but a company which is having difficulty because the industry is having difficulty. I think this is something we should support.
Finally, I would like to say something about a labour-management matter which exists right now involving the Government of Canada and the postal workers. Right now we are moving into a new era. This House and the Senate passed the Post Office Corporation Act. We have moved the postal service of this country from the point of being a service provided by a government department in the traditional sense to becoming a business corporation. It is hiring a manager at a tremendous salary. I think his responsibilities will be in accordance with his salary. At least they ought to be, and if they are not, he ought not to keep his job. If it is to be a corporation, then it ought to run like every other corporation and provide a service. If it is reasonable to ask, as the hon. member has asked, that a firm with 100 or more employees allow the creation of a kind of sharing arrangement in the ownership, and thereby in the fruits of the ownership, then I hope that this debate will not be lost on the government. If we are to have the corporate set-up, if we are to have all the benefits of the labour relations code, I think it is perhaps time that we also have the opportunity to give it to those employees so they can share in the profits of that association. The government, the employees and the people will have some incentive to see that operation work, differently, apparently, than has the department, because that is the reason we are moving. It is to move out of one area which has not proven itself successful, I guess, into something else.
I think that perhaps my friend, the hon. member for Lon-don-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield), who is sitting on the backbench smiling at me right now and nodding his head in agreement, should perhaps take the message to the people in the front benches that they ought to consider a plan for that new corporation where the employees would have a stake in the continued operation of that corporation and, therefore, in the service of the country. I do not know how Your Honour translates it, but I think there are a great number of people in this country who would not mind that kind of sharing arrangement if they could see, as a result, the service continue.
As the hon. member pointed out, that is not to say that this would involve in any way a conflict between the employer on the one hand and the employees' union on the other. There is a
Profit-sharing by Employees
great deal to unionism which goes beyond strikes. From time to time unions get a bad name because of strikes. However, there is a great deal which goes beyond strikes. These include conditions of work, hours of work, safety, and a whole host of other things outside the whole question which we always hear about, that management-union relations and strikes are part of the unions' responsibility. The fact that there have been great advances for working men and women in Canada since Confederation, I think, is something that can be laid at the feet of militant unionism.
I came from a small town where they produced-all hon. members have heard of it-Mazola, Crown brand corn starch. It was a plant which operated for years, the Canada Starch Company, under a benevolent owner. People decided to organize that plant. At the time it was organized, they said that would be the end of the plant, they could never make a profit, they would have to close down, they would have to do this, and they would have to do that. They went through all those early traumatic beginnings. Then, United Food Processors came to that plant. As a result, wages increased. Of course they increased, as they would have increased under the benevolent owner, although perhaps not as much. They have had a relatively peaceful history of labour negotiations.
However, from the point of view of the working man and woman in that plant, not only has his or her pay package increased, but working conditions have been better. They never thought they should have showers in a place which was dusty and dirty. Now they have showers. They never thought that there was any safety problem in the machine shops and in the moving parts of the factory. It was brought to attention by the safety people in the union, and a benevolent management recognized that as an oversight and dealt with it. As a result of the marketing stance of that company, the town is prosperous and the business is expanding. It provides employment and excellent working conditions for the people who likely would not have achieved the same conditions but for the existence of the union and the confrontation which took place. They are at this stage now.
I think that one could say of that company, although it is a large one, that perhaps the time has come when a company like that might consider sharing its profit and its management decisions with people who have the greatest stake in the company, the investors themselves. That is the purpose of the bill. I think if it can eliminate the two solitudes or the three solitudes, business, government and labour in this country, then I think the principle is one worth promoting.
In fact, I may say to the hon. member that she is likely on the cutting edge of a change of attitude in Canada with respect to this matter. I commend her for bringing forward the bill. If no one on her side had seconded it, I would have seconded it. I hope that somehow or other her friends will not talk the bill out and that somehow or other at least the subject matter of the bill would get to a committee. As a matter of fact, if I had a motion in my hand, I would propose it myself. If there is an hon. member who would propose that, then I would be pre-

July 3, 1981
Profit-sharing by Employees
pared to support the reference of the subject matter to a committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the hon. member for having moved the bill. It is not a novel concept by any means if one looks at world events; but the time has come for this idea in Canada. While I can hardly imagine that by itself it will resolve all the labour problems which creep into society from time to time, I am sure that it will go a long way toward making people feel as if their efforts in the workplace were of some value. All too often, the attitude is that there is management on the one hand and labour on the other, that somehow or other each has a peculiar thing that they can offer and that there is no way that one or the other can infringe on the opposition's area of expertise. I think that is wrong.
I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) that I think it is important that we take a look at this matter. I do not want to leave the wrong impression. I do not think that this will be an easy task, by any means. I do not think that moving from the current labour relations attitudes, from the current management prerogatives attitude, to an over-all situation which will embrace the involvement of the so-called workers in the management decisions will come with ease.
I am positive that just as it took a great deal of time and effort to build the labour relations structure which is presently in place-even with all of its faults, it works very well in the main; it works very well in most instances-just as it took a long time to develop the trust and to get people to accept it, it will take a long time for us to get the whole idea of the democratization of the workplace to reach a level of similar acceptance. That should not in any way inhibit us from trying. That should not stop us, as the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has just said, from having the matter studied further and having recommendations come back to the House of Commons to be dealt with in far more detail.
It is a very complex topic. To support the principle is not necessarily to support all of the detail. The detail does not necessarily always work in the way in which it is conjured up for the purposes of the creation of one bill. But I think that if the government really believes that this is a worthwhile move and that the way to improve the labour relations situation is to involve Canadians in Canadian enterprise, to encourage the commitment of Canadian workers to the companies for which they work and also to Canada as a whole, then the government might look at its own obligation in this regard, and rather than show the way, lead the way.
There is within the civil service, whether it be in the Post Office to which I intend to make reference or in the many Crown corporations which are tied to the government, ample opportunity to enable workers to become involved in management decisions and thus show to private enterprise and the
public that this kind of democratization of the workplace can yield substantial results.
Reference was made earlier to the experience in Germariy of co-determination which has worked reasonably well. Not too long ago I was in Germany and indeed I spent quite a bit of time there some years ago discussing that very matter. I saw how workers can be encouraged and can be elected to management boards.
People on the floor of the shop take part in the decisionmaking. Who knows better about the way the assembly line works than the man or woman whose place is there? Who knows better whether it is being used to its full capacity or if there are ways of improving productivity, of improving safety, of encouraging the worker to share the expertise which can only be gained by pushing the buttons, measuring the stock, taking the finished material and checking it over? Surely that expertise ought to be available to those who may never have worked in the shop but who may have received their education in a university or community college. They are hired to manage but do not know how things really work in the shop from personal knowledge.
I have always felt that if we were to tap the brains of the individuals who make the product and allow them to take part in making decisions about the allocation of resources, the way the line works, hours of work and the assignment of responsibility, then the work place would be more productive and happier. That would make for a better society in general.
It is a shame about a place like Johns-Manville, which comes to mind, where it was well known that working conditions were contributing to the development of lung cancer in workers. The workers knew this but the managers who sat in their air-conditioned offices some distance away from the shop, continued to resist year after year the call to clean the place up and make it safer. In the final analysis, government had to pass a law to protect the workers.
Had the workers been able to participate in management, that need not have had happened. They could have made representations about the benefit that would flow to the corporation if their recommendations were implemented. They would have been more productive and their health and safety would have been protected.
I can think of many, many other examples, where the process proposed by the hon. member for Mercier could be helpful.
For years there has been talk about profit sharing. Perhaps Dominion Foundaries and Steel Limited is the largest profit sharing company in the country. There is no question that the people who work for that company in Hamilton, many of whom are my neighbours, have a great deal of loyalty to it. They may argue from time to time about working conditions, they may feel aggravated or think that they deserve better- that is human nature and I suppose from time to time they are right-but I know from speaking to them that as a result of profit sharing there is far more loyalty to that corporation than there is to others manufacturing similar products.
July 3, 1981

When the workers see production levels and profit margins increase, they feel that it is worthwhile to put more effort into their work. At the end of the year they can see the company-matched profit sharing plan grow by leaps and bounds and know that is is available for them in the future. Such a plan must be implemented willingly, but when it is, the benefit flows not only to the workers in the plant, but to the company and, perhaps more important, to the nation.
1 think that key elements of the industrial strategy about which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) has been speaking, must be the degree to which we are prepared to allow the people of Canada to participate in decisions about the manufacturing process, and the way in which we harness the resources of this country in the interest of this and future generations.
We are delighted to support this bill and see it sent to committee for study, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the sponsor if she would consider saying, when presenting it to cabinet, that if the government were to alter its attitude toward its own employees, involve them in the decision-making processes and show by example that it has faith in its own employees to the extent that it is prepared to invite them to become part of management and if it can show that this results in increased productivity and a better atmosphere in the work place as well as reduced costs, then there might be less difficulty in selling her bill to the private sector.
Someone mentioned the Post Office. What can one say about that, Mr. Speaker? It is hard to believe that a better attitude could not have been developed within the Post Office, and I think the hon. member would agree with that. I cannot imagine that profit sharing would work there, but I think the hon. member could appreciate that if workers had been involved in the management of the postal service and the operation of the Post Office, we might not have a strike today.


Walter David Baker: What about efficiency bonuses?


Ian Deans: I do not know how that would be managed; perhaps from the sale of stamps! Efficiency is very much a function of the way in which the management system operates.


An hon. Member:: Are you for or against the bill?


Ian Deans: I think you heard me say that I am for it. Sorry, you were not here, but before you came in to the chamber, I said I was for it.
At any rate, in the case of the Post Office, if you were to look at the way in which it has operated, it was bad management decisions which put in those extremely large sorting houses which have mail move from one municipality to another and back simply for that purpose. The people who work for the Post Office, at least those to whom I spoke, said that the system would not work, that it would be less efficient and that it should not be implemented. When they were saying that to me, they were also saying it to their own managers.
Profit-sharing by Employees
They were saying that the system was not a good idea, that it would not work, that the sorting machines, and the way in which this procedure had been separated out from the normal process that used to be there and worked very well, should not be implemented. If this kind of participation had been encouraged by government, and if management had been encouraged to listen to the workers, and if the workers had had their ideas incorporated, I say to the hon. member who smiles that we would not have the mess we have today. Because I happen to believe that is true, I feel it is worthwhile supporting the bill.
It is strange that any time workers are asked to participate in a company, at least in historical terms, it is when a company is in terrible shape. Companies never come forward and ask for participation when things are going reasonably well. They only come forward and ask when things are the pits, when a company is on the downslide and near the bottom. Then companies are eager to have everybody's participation, workers and government alike.


Walter David Baker: That is what we have to make sure does not happen.


Ian Deans: I think we have to be cautious. I did not say always, I said almost without exception, and I always leave a little leeway for those unusual circumstances, which the hon. member can no doubt recall, given his vast memory.
That has always happened, in my experience. Doug Fraser was not asked to sit on the board of Chrysler when Chrysler was doing well. In fact, when it was suggested they might be prepared to participate in the days when Chrysler was doing well, they were told to mind their own business. I think we have to try to break that syndrome. That is what this bill does, and that is why it is worthy of support.
In any event, speaking on behalf of most of my colleagues-


Stanley Howard Knowles: All of us.


Ian Deans: -here and absent they would be prepared to see the matter discussed further.
I have one last point. It always seems strange to me how companies respond to this kind of thing. When profits are up, companies do not want to share because they need the profit for the future. They say that, after all, they invested their money and are, therefore, entitled to their return. But when profits are down, companies simply lay off workers. It is a strange system under which we operated. In my opinion, a lot of education is required before we will be able to change the minds of the corporate sector. I hope that, with the Liberal and Conservative parties representing primarily the corporate sector, given that they have offered their support to the bill, they will be able to lobby their friends in the corporate boardrooms and encourage them to accept this very enlightened view. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we will have no difficulty with the very enlightened leaders of the trade unions in getting them to accept that this kind of move is necessary and worthwhile. We will do our job. I wish you well in yours.

July 3, 1981
Profit-sharing by Employees


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has asked me to speak very briefly, and I will. I just want to reiterate what he has said and what the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has said.
We are debating what I believe to be a most important issue for the country. My colleague, the hon. member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) has drawn attention to one of the most pressing problems facing Canada today. It is her hope, and for that matter the hope of every responsible member of this House, that we might find some way, some mechanism, for continuing industrial peace in this country.
My colleague has gone further than that. She has stated that the objective of the bill before us now is not only harmonious relations between labour and management across Canada but continued and even increased productivity and profitibility of Canadian corporations from coast to coast.
As is stated in the bill before us, which I will paraphrase, it is recommended that businesses incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act create a special class of shares to be held by its employees, that holders of those shares have a prior right to dividend payments, and that employees be represented by two of their number on the board of directors of the corporation. These amendments would apply to all federally incorporated businesses with over 100 employees. I do not think it can be argued that my hon. colleague had anything other than the best interests of the nation in mind when she proposed the amendments to the current legislation. Considering the problems facing us and facing others in the western industrialized world, 1 believe this kind of innovative thinking and fresh approach is needed now and will be needed even more in the future.
If I may, I wish to speak to the two major provisions of my colleague's proposal. Looking first at the question of profit sharing, I agree with my colleague that employee ownership of shares in their own company provides a strong psychological and financial commitment to a particular corporation. I wonder, however, if the British, Scandinavian and French employee profit sharing incentives will, as Professor Ziegal points out, prove to be an exercise in discount buying and short-term profit taking. Studies in those countries have shown an overwhelming tendency on the part of employees to sell their company shares approximately eight months after purchase.
On the other hand, there is significant experience in this country among major corporations in this area. A fairly large number of Canadian-based corporations offer discount share options to their employees and, from all reports, employees are taking advantage of such an investment opportunity. While I am in full agreement with my colleague from Montreal-Mer-cier, there is nothing in the current Canada Business Corporations Act, to prevent employees from investing in their own corporation.
Second, considering the current economic difficulties shared by all western industrialized nations, it could be argued that the proposed amendment to the Canada Business Corporations Act carries with it an implication of compulsion that might prove detrimental to corporate activity and expansion. I want to make it clear that I believe the passage of the profit sharing provisions of the proposed amendment involve not a difference of opinion between myself and my colleague, but rather a difference in the consideration of appropriate timing.
On the whole, I cannot but commend my hon. colleague for her foresight in bringing to the consideration of this chamber such a progressive proposal. I cannot characterize the bill as radical because its inherent logic and inevitability are evident. However, because of the questions I have raised and certain other questions in the minds of some of us, I believe it would be short-changing business and labour in Canada if we as Parliament adopted any measure of this potential magnitude without a complete and fair investigation and debate.
In that connection, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-225, an Act to promote profit-sharing by employees in business be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.
I declare the amendment carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the motion, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the bill is withdrawn and the subject matter thereof is referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having now expired, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.51 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, July 6, 1981