1981-06-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of importance. In this regard I refer to a statement made by Madam Speaker, on April 23, 1980, and I would like to quote just one sentence from that statement, in part:
All positions of the House of Commons will be awarded through competition ... if there is a question of promoting them inside the structure once they get in, then they will have to submit to a competition.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That Madam Speaker be respectfully asked to report to the House the reasons why Jean Noel Tremblay, a member of the House of Commons staff, formerly of the Department of Communications, reportedly did not submit to a competition before his appointment as Director of Public Relations to the House of Commons; and Finally, it is the opinion of this House that since members are, by tradition, masters of their own House, this information should be made available as soon as conveniently possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. For the past two years the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) has been studying the situation and promising the residents of Whitehorn, Temple, Fal-conbridge, and Castleridge, mail delivery. To date, nothing has been done. The minister's empty promises and arrogant attitude in passing the buck can no longer be tolerated. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That the Postmaster General take action immediately to ensure that these residents receive the same door to door postal delivery, which is provided in other parts of the city of Calgary.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Because of the Liberal government's high interest rate policy, the present indebtedness of many home owners and businessmen is beyond their capacity to pay and they are being evicted. Whereas it is essential in the interest of Canada to retain people in both their homes and businesses, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the government introduce legislation which would allow banks and other lending institutions to establish debt adjustment or debt moratorium boards. Such legislation was in effect on the prairies during the 1930s. This would make it possible to ease the burden of staggering increased monthly mortgage payments for home owners and the bankrupting effect of loan payments on businesses.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Economic Council of Canada report, "Reforming Regulation", has found marketing boards such as the hog boards, the fruit and vegetable boards and the Canadian Wheat Board as "generally... operating successfully and to the benefit of society", and whereas the council's analysis of supply management boards is fraught with inconsistencies and dubious economic assumptions and has ignored the real contribution of

June 12, 1981
such boards to the stabilization of farm incomes in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Green-wood (Mr. Rae):
That this House supports the right of farmers to a fair return for their products and ratifies the concept of farm marketing boards as the means whereby farmers can gain such a return where currently denied because of insufficient bargaining power in many commodities in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, as well as the Solicitor General, immediately launch an investigation into the Gestapo-like tactics which were shamefully employed at the Restigouche reserve yesterday.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of importance. In view of the fact that high levels of inflation are becoming institutionalized within the Canadian economy through mechanisms such as COLA clauses and indexed pensions, and in view of the fact that those who are subject to the capital gains tax do not have the benefit of having their initial investment appreciate on the basis of the inflation rate, which leaves them with a much greater paper profit than corresponds to their actual gain, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That the Minister of Finance consider changes to the capital gains tax which would index the initial investment of a capital gain to the inflation rate so that the government's cut would be a fair, equitable and more accurate means of taxing real gains rather than paper profits, and that such needed changes be included in the Minister of Finance's next budget.


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


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Considering that all people should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, and in view of a recent decision by one Crown prosecutor to recommend a conditional discharge for three officers of K-Mart Canada Limited guilty of conspiring to thwart a union's organizing efforts, while courts have recently given jail sentences for labour leaders such as Jean-Claude Parrot of CUPW, Sean O'Flynn of the Ontario Public Service Union, and Grace Hartman of CUPE, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House express its opposition to a double standard in the punishment for labour/management offences and urges the courts to treat labour leaders in the same light as management.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday a small army of federal and provincial officials occupied the Restigouche Indian Reserve in Quebec for four hours, thereby bringing relations with the native people to a new low point. In light of this excessive and inappropriate response to a fishing dispute, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Whereas the government extended the boundaries of the western region designated for herd maintenance by adding special designated areas equally damaged by last summer's drought, and whereas many producers in northeastern Alberta who were originally ineligible for assistance under this program were suddenly included but upon submitting their applications for assistance were informed that their applications could not be accepted because they had missed the deadline for application previously set, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That the government end its discrimination against those producers who filed their applications after the official deadline because their regions were added at
June 12, 1981

the last moment as special drought areas, and recognize that many western farmers still have legitimate claim to herd maintenance assistance, and adjudicate each case on its own merit.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson):
That this House commends the chairman and members of the Economic Council of Canada on the steps that they have proposed in their report on reforming regulations, to initiate the deregulation of the private sector and permit the ability of the free market system to operate in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the beginning of 1980 the price of a barrel of oil has increased some SI2.79. Of that increase $4 was shared by the federal government, the provincial governments of the producing provinces, and the industry. The federal government took in a total $8.79. The result is that 72 per cent-would you like me to repeat those figures?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Since 1980 the price of a barrel of oil has increased $12.79 a barrel; $4 of that was shared among the producing provinces, the federal government, and the industry, and $8.79 was taken by the federal government. The result is that 72 per cent of the $12.79 increase is taken by the federal government in the form of increased taxes, and the consumer
Oral Questions
has had to pay 60 cents more per gallon of gasoline during this period of time.
The Prime Minister indicated on Tuesday that the major obstacle in the current negotiations with the province of Alberta was in the area of revenue sharing. Can the minister indicate whether the price negotiations, in which he has played a part this week, concerned only a re-allocation of the $8.79 among the other parties, the provinces and the industry, or is it the federal government's intention to keep all of that revenue? Is the minister only discussing a re-allocation of the additional price increases currently under discussion with his colleague in Alberta from now on?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, included in the prepared figures mentioned by the hon. member, which he attributed to the federal government, he knows that something like $2 is a result of the cutbacks imposed by the government of Alberta.


Mr. Crosbie:: That is nonsense. Pinocchio, watch your nose.


Marc Lalonde: This charge was necessary to pay for the additional imports. In addition, a significant amount of the federal share also goes to pay for what is called the Syncrude levy. We have to pay world price for the oil produced by the tar sands plant and the production coming from that plant.
As far as the other part of the federal government share is concerned, most of that has to do with oil import payments. We have to pay high prices for oil imports because of decisions taken by OPEC over the last couple of years.
In terms of pricing itself, I want to repeat that what the federal government has been collecting has all gone for energy purposes in the area of oil payments.


John Carnell Crosbie: Come off it.


Marc Lalonde: It has not gone into the general revenue of the government for other expenditures.
As far as the issue of negotiations with the government of Alberta is concerned, I am pleased to inform my hon. friend that we have discussed both the question of revenue sharing and the question of pricing.


REVENUES FROM FUTURE WELLHEAD PRICE INCREASES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, again I sought an answer and again I received no answer. The fact is that 72 per cent of the revenues are going to the federal government in the form of increased tax revenues. That is a fact and you cannot get away from it. The $2 to which the minister referred, blame for which should be shared between himself and his colleague from Alberta, I agree, was instigated by the minister of energy in his energy program. Even if you take away that $2, over 50 per cent of the revenues still end up in the federal coffers. That does not take into account the production tax or excise tax on natural gas also introduced in the energy program.

Oral Questions
It is clear that the federal government is more interested in increasing its revenues than sharing those revenues with the different parties in the negotiations. If the wellhead price does increase, will there be any additional revenues from that price increase, the production tax and the excise tax on natural gas, which will allow some reduction in the federal tax revenues and thus allow for some reduction in the burden on the consumer?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member says that the Government of Canada is getting a greater share than before as a result of the increases that have been announced since the budget. There is no apology necessary because, of all the federal countries in the world, Canada was getting the least moneys for the responsibilities it had incurred. If you compare it with other federations, such as the United States or Australia, you find that since 1973 the national government in Canada has been getting an extremely low share. It is a definite purpose of the National Energy Program to ensure that in the future the national government, on behalf of all Canadians, receives a fair share so that it can help the regions and people in need, while at the same time assisting Canadian consumers with prices that will not be as extreme as they would have been under the Conservative budget of December, 1979. The hon. member's question is obviously hypothetical and not according to the rules of the House.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It may be hypothetical to the minister, but those who are paying 60 cents more a gallon do not find it hypothetical. Indeed, they find it very painful.


DETAILS OF OFFER WITH RESPECT TO PRICING AGREEMENT
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question deals with another aspect of the energy negotiations, the megaprojects such as the Syncrude expansion, Alsands, and the Cold Lake project. These projects are potential casualties of the negotiations if there is not a proper conclusion. The problem is partly because they have been put on hold by the province of Alberta, and very significantly because of the price regime set out in the energy program last October. I have two questions for the minister. First, are the prices for the synthetic crude products a subject of the current negotiations? Second, is the minister intending to offer an increase in the price and the escalation factor, if it is necessary, independent of any agreement that he might come to with the province of Alberta in order to get these projects moving ahead and working toward increasing our future supply?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, nobody likes price increases, least of all the Government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: First we had Uriah Heep; now Marc Heep.


Marc Lalonde: If the hon. member looks at the figures he will find that the consumers are paying less than they would have been paying under the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West.


John Carnell Crosbie: Nobody believes that anymore.


Marc Lalonde: Second, thanks to the measures we have taken, Canadian consumers have saved about S2.2 billion, which represents about $370 per family, because of the pricing policy we have followed since the 1979 election. That is money Canadians have in their pockets thanks to the measures we have adopted. Third, I already stated that if the Alberta cutbacks were to be eliminated tomorrow, we could reduce the price by seven cents a gallon. These are facts the hon. member should not forget.
As to the question concerning tar sands, I have indicated that the government is ready to show flexibility on all aspects. I have suggested in the past that the matter of tar sands plants be considered separately from the general discussion on conventional oil, but the government of Alberta has taken the position that no agreement other than a comprehensive agreement would be entertained. I am afraid this is a matter that is in the hands of the government of Alberta and about which I can do little.


REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN FEDERAL SHARE OF REVENUES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, earlier this week the Prime Minister said in this House that he would be satisfied if the federal government received 23 per cent to 25 per cent of petroleum revenues in Canada, yet the minister's own department provides figures which indicate that 56 cents, or 33.7 per cent of the price of every gallon of gasoline sold at the pumps in Ontario, for example, goes to the federal treasury, as compared to 22.7 cents for the producing provinces, 10 cents to the dealer, 19.3 cents to the producer, and so on. In view of these statistical facts which far exceed the Prime Minister's own expectations in regard to federal revenues, will the minister now cut back on federal energy taxes, from present energy revenues to at least the 25 per cent level suggested by the Prime Minister?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, first of all, I invite the hon. member to refer to what the Prime Minister said. Second, when we mentioned 23 to 24 per cent in the budget, we were making a comparison with the base that had been used for years and yielded a rate of about 9 or 10 per cent for the federal share. That was the base used for many years to determine the revenues of the various levels of government. This estimate is not arrived at on the basis of prices at the pump, but rather of wellhead prices. This is how those figures are established. On that basis, the Canadian government's share was only about 9 per cent of the wellhead price before
June 12, 1981

the last budget, and between 23 and 25 per cent approximately under the budgetary proposals.
If my hon. colleague wants to introduce another formula to take into account prices at the pump or retail prices, he will obviously arrive at other figures and other percentages. In such a case, the Canadian government's share would, of course, be other than the 23 to 24 per cent mentioned by the Minister of Finance in his budget. I therefore invite my colleague not to change the formula along the way. He must not change the rules of the game!


ENERGY TAX REBATE PROGRAM
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, the minister may not be looking at the price of gasoline at the gas pump, but every Canadian who is a consumer is looking at that price which has increased by 60 cents a gallon since the beginning of last year. As far as the Prime Minister's statement is concerned, which the minister questioned, I will quote the Prime Minister from page 10397 of Hansard for June 19. When talking about energy revenues the Prime Minister said:
We would like the over-all result to be the federal government sharing 23 per cent or 25 per cent of the take-
The minister's own department provides figures which indicate that the take is 33.7 cents. Since the minister is not prepared to cut back energy taxes across the board, would he at least now be prepared to return part of this excessive share of revenue to those Canadians who have been disproportionately affected by the energy price increases? In other words, is the minister now prepared to introduce an energy tax rebate program for low and middle-income families and, if not, why not, considering these facts from his own department?


Marc Lalonde: I will try in English, Madam Speaker. The hon. member is talking apples and oranges. When the budget was put forward it provided the federal government with a 23 per cent to 24 per cent take at the wellhead. This is the way this calculation has been made consistently. If my hon. friend wants to come back to a calculation at the pump, obviously there will be other percentages, and the figures mentioned by the Prime Minister and the figures mentioned by the Minister of Finance would have to be adjusted accordingly.
There is one way of calculating that has been consistently followed. I remind my hon. friend that that was followed by the Conservative government for the short time it was in office, and we are following exactly the same formula for calculating the share of revenue which was contained in the infamous budget of December, 1979. We have not changed the rules of the game, and I invite my hon. friend not to change the rules of the game.
As far as consumers are concerned, the government has moved-
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister, who no doubt has been made aware that cost of living figures came out today. I hope he noted that, excluding food prices, prices went up by 12.2 per cent, which is the largest increase in 31 years. There were record increases in the cost of transportation and housing. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he will now acknowledge that the government has no general anti-inflation policy at all which is effective. Specifically, would he tell us how his government's interest rate policy will bring down the price of housing and the price of transportation one little bit?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, it is people like the Leader of the New Democratic Party who have caused the science of economics to be called the dismal science.


John Edward Broadbent: That is worthy of Adam Smith.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the New Democratic Party always seeks out the worst sub-item of any item, hones in on that, tears his hair out, and suggests that things are going terribly. The Leader of the New Democratic Party knows perfectly well that the cost of living year over year has fallen this month compared with the equivalent month of last year, so why does he take out one sub-item and draw his economic theories from that?


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it was not I who took out one sub-item. If the Prime Minister looks at his briefing notes with care, he will see that Statistics Canada has a separate listing for changes in the cost of living with food exempted. It is Statistics Canada which points out that we have had the largest increase across the board in 31 years. We are not making up those figures. The government should pay attention to them.


QUERY RESPECTING ASSISTANCE TO CONSUMERS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, in January prices went up by 12 per cent, in February by more than 12 per cent, in March by more than 12 per cent, and the same in April and May. For five months in a row we have had this increase, which is another record. Never in 31 years have prices gone up by more than 12 per cent five months in a row. When will the government announce a single new initiative which will help Canadians cope with escalating prices?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance announced such an initiative

June 12, 1981
Oral Questions
two days ago in this House when he indicated that he had met with the chartered banks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that the Leader of the New Democratic Party does not like the Minister of Finance meeting with bankers, but that is part of his job.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, economics may be a dismal science, but we surely have a dismal Prime Minister when we get answers like that today on such an important subject. The Prime Minister knows that the Minister of Finance did not bring a specific proposal away from the bankers. If he does not know that, the people of Canada do.


EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister took pride a couple of weeks ago in saying to me that as a Liberal he believed in gradualism. Considering that for three years in a row Canadian living standards have gone gradually down, and considering that for five months in a row prices have gone gradually up beyond 12 per cent each month, will the Prime Minister confirm that gradualism for the Liberals really means a gradual decline in the living standard of every Canadian from coast to coast?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, when I answered that question about two weeks ago and showed the Leader of the New Democratic Party, with statistics, that Canadians are better off today than they were ten years ago, the Leader of the New Democratic Party said, "Of course they are, but that is not my point". I do not know what point he wants to make when he says Canadians are worse off. When we indicate with statistics that they are better off, he says, "Of course; I am not denying that". I wish he would make up his mind on what he wants to complain about.


ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Economic Council of Canada has just completed a report on regulations which cost $3 million and which was done at the Prime Minister's direction and at the urging of the provinces. The council was asked to assess government regulations in Canada. The report suggests that Canadian consumers could save billions of dollars a year in trucking, airline and food costs if the council were listened to. The council found that direct economic controls have resulted in what it says is a substantial waste of economic resources.
This study has taken three years to do. It has cost $3 million. It was done at the direction of the Prime Minister. The Economic Council of Canada reports to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister tell the House what action the government plans in following up on this three-year study? Will the government report to this House what recommendations it accepts and what recommendations it rejects, and why it accepts or rejects these recommendations which cost so much to bring forward to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the thrust of the report of the Economic Council is one which the government has been concerned about these past few years and which caused us to set up the task force composed of members of this House, and so ably chaired by the hon. member for Willowdale, which has reported to this House. As a consequence of that report-and, no doubt, in studying further the report of the Economic Council-the government will continue to accelerate its initiatives in order to do away with or to simplify regulations which can be done away with or simplified. In cases of overlap with provincial regulations, we will continue to put an end to such overlap.
The hon. member might want to know that the government has established the office of co-ordinator for regulatory reform under my excellent colleague, the President of the Treasury Board. Of course, when we created the office of controller general, the controller general initiated a program of evaluation which will lead to some substantial improvement in this area.


REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. The report of the House of Commons committee on regulations was filed here on December 19. Very little has been done about it. One of the committee's main recommendations was that there should be a special committee of this House on regulations set up on a permanent basis. Nothing has been done about that. As part of my question I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is going to accept that recommendation which was put in by that special committee.
After a three-year study, the Economic Council of Canada has reported to Canadians that billions of dollars can be saved by de-regulation in the transportation field and with respect to food costs and the like. This is a very serious conclusion, and the people of Canada are entitled to know if it is so. If it is so, will the government do it? Is the Prime Minister taking this report of his council seriously? Will he report to the House in the next week or so on what recommendations the government accepts and sees merit in, and what recommendations it does not accept?
For example, the Minister of Agriculture certainly does not accept aspects of the report. Will the government treat this frankly and honestly and report to us and the Canadian consumer as to what it is going to act on, what it is not going to act on, and just exactly what it is going to do, because this is a very amazing, one would say, and important report?
June 12, 1981


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member is attaching such importance to this report. He will be a positive influence in his own party when we come to discussing the question of parliamentary reform, which is very high on the government's agenda and which would permit us to consider the implementation of some of the recommendations in the Peterson task force report.
In so far as the Economic Council recommendations are concerned, the hon. member is correct in pointing out that they refer particularly to certain departments. The Department of Transport and the Department of Agriculture are two examples. Of course the ministers responsible for these departments are already beginning to study the report and to consider ways by which action could be taken.


John Carnell Crosbie: Would you report to us on it?


MULTICULTURALISM
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism, who announced with much fanfare the other day a $1.5 million program to combat racism. He made remarks about how terrible racism is, and I agree with him.
While the minister is announcing a $1.5 million program to combat racism, the Minister of Employment and Immigration is cutting the funding for the Immigrant Services Society in British Columbia. Given the fact there are 1,000 immigrants a month into the lower mainland area of British Columbia, and given the fact that 43 per cent of children starting school in my area speak English as their second language, and given the fact we have a large non-white population in the lower mainland, and given the fact that without the Immigrant Services Society-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Allen Fraser: Who is the speaker over there anyway? Given the fact that we brought-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, what they do not want to hear is obvious.


Madam Speaker:: Members will hear anything during debate, but Question Period requires members to put their questions rather concisely.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, my question is this: Why is one hand of government cutting the funding so desperately needed out there, while people in the minister's department are
Oral Questions
going around trying to make heroes out of themselves by saying they do not like racism?


An hon. Member:: Same old gang.


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, perhaps the reason I did not immediately catch the hon. member's question was because it is the first question I have had from the opposition in eight months. They certainly seem to have a great interest in multiculturalism and equity in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I believe there was a shot at the end of the question to the effect that we were trying to do something self-seeking in announcing the program to improve racial equity in Canada. I do not find that self-seeking; surely that is a fundamental policy supported by all sides of this House in several motions under Standing Order 43 in the last couple of months.
The question of ISAP funding should, of course, be directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, but I might say that the statements made by the hon. member in posing his question are alarmist and untrue according to the facts I have.


REASONS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
John Allen Fraser: I invite the minister to retract what he said. I know what goes on in my own area.
I ask the minister: why do you indulge in the hypocrisy of this kind of announcement when you cut the funding that we so desperately need in an area where we will have problems if you do not support the very agencies and organizations that are on the ground trying to fight racism? That is what I want to know.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, I believe the government has been most supportive of those immigrant settlement organizations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: In fact, Madam Speaker, it was this government that established the increased acceptance of boat people in the refugee program, and I think if the hon. member lost a bit of his histrionics and theatrics and just waited a little, he would find there was some pretty good news for those organizations.


ASTRA TRUST
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance concerning the affairs of Astra Trust and Re-Mor.

June 12, 1981
Oral Questions
In light of the statement by the superintendent of insurance, and I am quoting from the statement he made to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs at which the minister was present:
In the light of what has happened, I can only say that it would have been better had the licence not been granted.
-and in light of the fact there are two groups of investors who have not been compensated, those who invested more than $20,000 in Astra Trust and those who invested in the Re-Mor company thinking it was associated with Astra, I would like to ask the minister does he not think the federal government has a responsibility to participate in the compensation of these individuals?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member has raised this issue once again. We should go back to the first discussions we had on this subject and differentiate between the responsibilities of the federal government toward corporations with a federal charter and the responsibilities of the provincial government.
As concerns Astra Trust, which indeed comes under federal jurisdiction because of the compensation agency provided, the depositors were covered up to the $20,000 maximum provided under the law. Investors in Re-Mor, which is a provincially incorporated institution subject to the review of provincial regulatory mechanisms, have to look to the government of Ontario to take its responsibilities and compensate them for their losses.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, that is a truly incredible statement. Re-Mor existed for over a year before the federal government was even aware of its existence, and the principals in Astra Trust are exactly the same people as the principals in Re-Mor. Many of the people investing in Re-Mor did so on the assumption that they were in fact investing in a company covered by federal insurance. In light of those facts, the minister's abdication of responsibility is truly incredible.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL INQUIRY
Bob Rae: As a supplementary question, Madam Speaker, I ask the minister, in light of the statement by the superintendent of insurance that the Astra licence should never have been granted, and in light of the fact that there are many questions surrounding the application for the licence and the operation of that company and related companies, does the minister not think it is the responsibility of the federal government to have a federal inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the licensing of that company? And quite apart from the existence of criminal and fraud charges which are under way, does he not think the federal government has a civil obligation to see that we know how it is
this was allowed to happen, and to make sure it does not happen again?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think that all the members of this House have noticed that the hon. member often has a tendency to draw general conclusions from narrow premises. When he concludes that the superintendent of insurance indicated to the committee that the licence should never have been granted, he is distorting totally the comments of the superintendent of insurance, and I invite him first of all to learn to read, and second, to read the statement made by the superintendent. As for the need for an investigation, my position is still the same, and the answer is no.
*
* *


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the growing advocacy by some members of this House and the press for changes in laws pertaining to possession of marijuana which appear to lessen their severity, will the minister take equally aggressive action to warn and educate the people of this country by every means at her disposal of the long and short-term medical dangers and hazardous effects of this drug, and introduce important medical considerations into the implementation of any proposed change?

Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Madam Speaker, we will launch an information and educational program on the dangers of marijuana, just as we now have, for instance, on tobacco and on alcohol abuse. I can assure the hon. member that any decision will be made in light of the need which may exist to eliminate certain legal injustices, but also of the need to warn people against developing a dangerous habit at certain moments in their lives.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Acting Minister of Finance and arises out of the price Canada had to pay yesterday for Treasury bills, and out of the fact that the government of the United States in tendering the same kind of Treasury bills on Tuesday was able to borrow its 90-day money at 14.9 per cent, and its 180-day money at just slightly over 14 per cent.
June 12, 1981

Can the acting minister tell this House why Canada had to pay 18.82 per cent for its 90-day money, and 18.22 per cent for its 180-day money, a spread of nearly 4 per cent between the borrowing cost in the United States and the borrowing cost in Canada?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the gap between those rates proves that the Leader of the New Democratic Party is wrong when he claims that Canada's interest rate policy is dictated by the United States.


REASONS FOR PRICE PAID
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Would the minister then confirm that the credit of Canada is at least 4 per cent worse than the credit of the United States? Would he confirm that the only reason we have to pay this kind of money is to keep our dollar at 83 cents? Can the minister confirm that with our resources and with the National Energy Program which is now in place, we are in real trouble, which is why we must pay 4 per cent more than the American government does in the same marketplace for the same kind of money?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I fully disagree with the simplistic conclusions of the hon. member. He ought to examine the phenomenon as a whole, look for the causes and endorse the position of the Minister of Finance who is going to pursue his attempt to control inflation so that the interest rates will be much more acceptable to Canadians.


HOUSING
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister whose government practises the dismal science so dismally. There are people in my riding who are terrified that they will be evicted from their homes because rent increases are climbing beyond their ability to pay, because of present interest rates. Since the Prime Minister's government is looking to the private sector to extend pension coverage, and since it is also looking to the private sector banks to alleviate the devastation caused by the government's interest policies, why is the Prime Minister so unwilling to look to the private sector construction industry to help resolve the housing crisis by offering builders financial incentives to build rental housing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I fail to understand the premise of the hon. lady's
Oral Questions
question when she says we look to the private sector on pension matters. Surely she should recall that one of the first acts of this Parliament was to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $420 a year, which has now been escalated to $460. So, it is not correct to say that. We find that we have, within the fiscal restraints which we all recognize in this House, obligations, and we discharged that particular one the first thing after the election.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister, and if he wishes to contradict the stated public policy of his minister responsible for pensions that is his right.


EFFECT OF MORTGAGE RATES
Pat Carney: The Prime Minister's colleague, the Minister of Finance, has maintained that his high interest rate policies are not reducing the quality of life for most Canadians. As a Canadian whose mortgage rate is going from 13 per cent to 18 per cent, I can assure the Prime Minister that my quality of life is being reduced by about $300 a month in extra interest costs. There are millions of Canadians in the same boat.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Pat Carney: Since the average cost of a Vancouver home in March of this year was about $152,000, and since a person with a 10 per cent down payment would require an annual income of $73,500 to pay for one of those homes-a Liberal cabinet minister could almost qualify in the unlikely event that one could be elected in Vancouver-what advice has the Prime Minister, whose home is supplied by the Canadian taxpayers, to offer the first-time home buyer in B.C. where the average family income is $29,000 a year? Or does the Prime Minister reject the right of Canadians to own their own homes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. lady complains that her quality of life has been reduced by virtue of high interest rates. Of course high interest rates are a very regrettable phenomenon, but I wish to point out to the hon. lady that the reason her quality of life has been reduced is because salaries of members of Parliament are fixed at a ceiling of a 7 per cent increase per year when, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party pointed out earlier, the cost of living has been rising considerably in excess of that over the past several years.


Mr. Siddon:: What are you going to do about it, Pierre?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Indeed, that is why the Mclsaac Report recommended that members of Parliament do away with this 7 per cent ceiling. The hon. lady probably could give the answer to the Tory in the back benches who asks what we are going to do about it. We are asking members opposite if they will join with members on this side to ensure that members of Parliament are remunerated in a fair way.

June 12, 1981
Oral Questions


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On page 85 of the National Energy Program it states very clearly and categorically the following:
In addition to expanded national renewables programs, extension of the P.E.I. Conservation and Renewable Energy Agreement will be undertaken, at a four-year cost of over $9 million.
In view of this firm commitment in black and white in the National Energy Program, how can the minister explain the fact that he has now announced to his counterpart in Prince Edward Island, the Hon. Barry Clark, that the agreement to which I have referred is to be scrapped and not renewed?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, under this agreement the government of Prince Edward Island has been extremely delinquent in terms of providing its own share of 20 per cent. As a matter of fact, at the present time the government of Prince Edward Island owes $1.8 million as its contribution under the program.
In conversations I have had with the energy minister in Prince Edward Island I have told him that I was ready to extend the program for a few months in order to ensure that all commitments which had been made under the previous program would be met, and also in order to allow time for the government of Prince Edward Island finally to make its own contribution under this program.
This particular program was obviously creating financial difficulties for the government of Prince Edward Island. Consequently, in the future the national government will pay the same amount, which was mentioned in the National Energy Program, but the sum will be paid by the national government directly without waiting for the provincial contribution. This will leave the provincial government free to spend whatever it wants in this regard, but the federal government contribution will be paid to the citizens of Prince Edward Island directly.


FORM OF PAYMENT TO ISLANDERS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, in light of what the minister has just said, I have two questions. Is the minister saying that there is a firm commitment now that the federal government will be paying to the people of Prince Edward Island a total of $9 million over a period of four years, albeit in a different form than that referred to in the National Energy Program, and if so, in what form will those payments be made? What sort of programs can the minister tell islanders they can count on, in view of the fact that in the last year energy costs in Prince Edward Island have soared 33 per cent over the previous year, compared with 28.5 per cent in the country as a whole?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, of this $9 million 80 per cent was to come from the national government and 20 per cent from the government of Prince Edward Island. The commitment is that the federal government's 80 per cent share will be paid to the citizens of Prince Edward Island. As for the other 20 per cent, it is up to the government of Prince Edward Island to do whatever it wishes. Indeed, I hope it will pay that amount to the citizens of Prince Edward Island. But looking at the past experience over the last couple of years I must say that I am rather doubtful, or skeptical, as to whether that share will be paid. As far as the national government is concerned, we will pay our full share under this program over the next four years. This share will go to energy conservation and renewable forms of energy, as it did before. We will observe our commitment completely.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. I am holding up the Bertrand report published by the minister's department, entitled "The State of Competition in the Canadian Petroleum Industry", which sells for $70-and it weighs about a ton. In my other hand I have the James Lorimer version published by Lorimer and Company, which costs $15 and it can be carried around by you on your bicycle, and you can read it when you wish. The minister's lawyers are trying to have the Lorimer version taken off the book stands, especially in Toronto. As I understand it, Lorimer and Company have offered 8 per cent royalties. I would ask the minister if he is prepared to enter into negotiations in good faith with Lorimer and Company, so that this report can be distributed widely, or does he not want this particular easy version of the report to be distributed?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I would call to the attention of the hon. member that the heavier report that is available contains an abbreviated summary of the contents of the report. I would suggest that he could read that if he does not have time to go through the total report. The other matter involving the James Lorimer Publishing Company is sub judice, so I will not make any comment at this time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I would hope that the minister would try to settle this matter so that the book can be distributed.
June 12, 1981


CROWN COPYRIGHT-REQUEST FOR REVIEW BY GOVERNMENT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister and it refers to government policy for distributing documents. In the United States every document is public property and can be distributed. In Canada we have Crown copyright, which is quite proper. Documents come out in this form and are very rarely distributed in this way. In the United Kingdom there is a sort of a middle road where there is Crown copyright but through a government circular some documents are made available to be published like this.
I hesitate to use the words, but in the interests of "participatory democracy", which some people may still believe in, is the Prime Minister prepared to commit the government at least to reviewing the nature of publishing documents and government reports so that they can get out to the people who can read, in this case about the workings of the oil monopoly in Canada? They would become better informed citizens and would be able to deal with these problems.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I want to advise the hon. gentleman that the policy he has described is exactly that which I follow. I enter into negotiations on a regular basis, a bona fide basis, and I do grant the copyright at any time there is justification. The purpose of the policy that I follow is to make available to as many Canadians as possible the information they ought to have. In effect that is why the report is available both in summary and in complete form. As for negotiations, anyone who wants to deal with me in good faith, Madam Speaker, can rest assured that I will deal with him in good faith.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, I have read the report of the Economic Council of Canada and despite what the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) may say, the council does indeed recognize marketing boards and the role they play in marketing Canadian farm products. However, it does express reservations about the Canadian dairy policy by saying that the control exercised by the Canadian Dairy Commission could result in an increase in the supply of milk at the consumer level. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether he agrees with this?


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, it is difficult to comment on this because the dairy policy is under review at present and will be announced in early August. However, I want to point out to the House that Canada's dairy policy is not more of a burden on Canadian taxpayers and consumers than the Ameri-
Oral Questions
can dairy policy and it is certainly much less so than that of the European Economic Community.


POST OFFICE
John Kushner: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Postmaster General. I have asked this question on many occasions. I see the minister is not in his place so I wonder if the acting minister would answer. My question refers to the group boxes to be installed at White-horn, Temple, Falconridge and Castleridge. It was promised that they would be installed shortly, but we have been dealing with this problem for the last two years. Has the acting minister got any additional information about when they will be installed and when mail delivery will be made to those boxes?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I take it as a two-part question. First of all, he is concerned about group boxes in certain Calgary suburbs. According to the information provided to me, Canada Post is providing service within the capability of the staff available. The equipment necessary for the provision of group box service to these areas is now in place. I can assure the hon. member that the group box service is temporary and letter carrier service will be extended to the suburbs of Calgary when manpower becomes available, either by the lifting of constraints or by a realignment of operations or new efficiencies introduced by the Post Office.


DOOR TO DOOR MAIL DELIVERY
John Kushner: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the acting minister if he is in a position to inform this House of the situation today. As he knows very well, numerous studies have been made on the subject of mail delivery in that area. For the last two years we have been promised, month after month, that we would have an answer. As a matter of fact this has been studied to death. Can the acting minister at least give us some indication of when mail delivery will be made from door to door?


Gary Francis McCauley: Madam Speaker, due to the growth in the suburbs of Calgary because of the great growth in the economy of Alberta, it is very difficult to give a date because we are under manpower restraints and Calgary is so successful in its economic development. We will endeavour to give the hon. member a date as soon as possible.

June 12, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Andre POINT OF ORDER


MR. ANDRE-PROVISIONS IN MAIN ESTIMATES, 1981-82-RULING BY MADAM SPEAKER
Madam Speaker:: On June 1 the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) argued the point of order that he had raised some weeks earlier, namely, the procedural acceptability of certain items contained in the main estimates for 198182. It had been suggested to the hon. member on that earlier occasion that he await until the estimates were formally returned to the House May 31, at which point there would remain ample time to dispose of the matter well before the last allotted day.
Both the hon. member for Calgary Centre and, in reply for the government, the President of the Treasury Board, (Mr. Johnston) dealt briefly with the history of the points of order relating to what the estimates should contain.
This history shows that during the past ten years, members have objected that in one way or another the estimates that have been submitted from time to time by the government have attempted to do more than set out the spending requirements of the government for the next fiscal year. This is of course supposed to be the acknowledged purpose of estimates and appropriation acts.
In 1971 the Chair ruled that items in the estimates that attempt to amend existing statutes are out of order. This was confirmed by most subsequent rulings.
In 1974 and 1976 the Chair went further and dealt with the question of matters of substance being put in the estimates. The Speaker, in effect, ruled that the Appropriation Act is not the place to seek authority to do something such as to establish a program. Rather, the Appropriation Act should only seek authority to spend the money for a program that has been previously authorized by a statute.
In 1977 the Chair continued to lay down these principles that should be followed in the use of the estimates and added that it makes no difference whether the item attempted to spend a large sum or simply one dollar. The distinction is unimportant. The test is whether or not the government is putting forward a spending estimate under authority it already possesses, or whether it is really seeking new legislative authority to do something.
In March of that year the Speaker said:
The government receives from Parliament the authority to act through the passage of legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized action through the passage by Parliament of an appropriation act. A supply item in my opinion ought not, therefore, to be used to obtain authority which is the proper subject of legislation;-
In other words, the government may not by the use of an Appropriation Act obtain authority that it does not have under existing legislation.
The then Speaker summed it up in this way in December, 1977:
Supply ought to be confined strictly to the process for which it was intended; that is to say, for the purpose of putting forward by the government the estimate of money it needs, and then in turn voting by the House of that money to the
government, and not to be extended in any way into the legislative area, because legislation and legislated changes in substance are not intended to be part of supply, but rather ought to be part of the legislative process in the regular way which requires three readings, committee stage, and, in other words, ample opportunity for Members to participate in debate and amendment.
Finally, it seems clear that it is in order to extend the purposes of an item in an Appropriation Act by means of an item in the estimates provided that it does not amend any other legislation.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre objects to 12 items contained in the main estimates. Of the 12, Agriculture vote 30, Department of Public Works vote L-70, Supply and Services vote 5, and Transport vote 110 each mention specific legislation which they seek to amend, and are clearly out of order on the basis of the principle established in 1971 and repeated continually in all of the rulings from the Chair since that time; that is, estimates which attempt to amend existing legislation are out of order.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre then objects to Energy, Mines and Resources votes 35, 40 and 45. An examination of these items clearly shows that they seek both to establish a new program in the absence of other legislative authority and the funds to put it into operation. This runs counter to the rulings of the Chair since 1974, which hold legislation is required to authorize new programs, particularly matters of major substance. That we are dealing here with matters of substance is demonstrated by the fact that vote 45 seeks even to grant to the governor in council the power to pass regulations. By definition, the estimates seek spending authority alone; they are not intended to ask for substantial authority, such as to pass regulations.
Accordingly, consistent with earlier rulings, Energy, Mines and Resources votes 35, 40 and 45 are out of order. I note that in his remarks last June 1, the President of the Treasury Board confirmed this view when he addressed the question of the receivability of these items by saying, "Of course, legislation will be introduced with respect to those programs". By asking for money now, he would be putting the cart before the horse.
The next items objected to are External Affairs votes L45, L50, L55 and L60, and Finance vote LI 5. They are grouped together because each of them seeks authority to finance international development by the use of issuing demand notes to the credit of the various named banks or institutions upon which they may draw in the Bank of Canada, or to purchase shares in the listed banks. The hon. member for Calgary Centre suggests that these items are an attempt to grant to the government authority to undertake certain actions rather than simply asking for funds, and that they also contravene the provisions of Section 80 of the Financial Administration Act, which states that the Crown cannot assign its debts without legislative authority.
While I suggest that these items do not seek, for the Crown, the right to assign its debts, three of them, nevertheless, seek to grant authority for the government to take certain action, and on a very substantial scale. This is, of course, contrary to
June 12, 1981

the previous rulings of the Chair mentioned earlier, which stated that legislation and legislative changes in substance are not intended to be part of supply.
However, two of the items, External Affairs votes L50 and L55, have previous statutory authority, albeit previous Appropriation Acts, and thus are in order. With respect to the three other votes, that is, External Affairs votes L45 and L60 and Finance vote LI5, they have no statutory foundation and are legislative items. Again, following the principles enunciated in previous rulings of the Chair, votes L45 and L60 of External Affairs and vote LI5, Finance, must be ruled out of order.
That these items are really legislative items which deal with matters of substance is confirmed in the Blue Book. There is shown, on the same page which contains these items, an amount to be paid as a statutory item, and the statute referred to is the very programs for which approval is being sought. In other words, if vote L60, which includes the initial subscription for shares in a bank, were to be passed this year, next year the second instalment would be shown as a statutory matter, and the program consisting of the remaining instalments for shares in the international bank would be shown as a votable item.
As I said earlier, the programs described by External Affairs votes L50 and L55 are authorized by previous Appropriation Acts, and therefore the moneys sought for the instalment to be paid are in order.
I notice that on March 25 of this year, when the House dealt with a point of order in respect of similar items by the hon. member, I ended my ruling on the note that they should be raised at some future date, and I would have to be convinced that these similar matters are not really legislative items that should be introduced by separate statute. It seems that that time has come, and I am not convinced. It is certainly apparent to me that if complicated votes such as these and, for that matter, if all votes included a reference to the statutory authority on which they are based, it would be easier to determine whether or not they were in order.
While the significance of such a ruling is not lost, as was said on March 22, 1977, the function of the Chair is to ensure that what Parliament attempts to do is procedurally correct. Furthermore, the Chair is comforted by the fact that the President of the Treasury Board said on June 1 last, in reply to the point of order at issue here, that legislation will be introduced with respect to these programs, referring to the programs for insulation and conversion from oil to gas.
While the hon. member for Calgary Centre may be correct in his suspicion that there are other votes in the estimates which are out of order, it is not the role of the Speaker to act on her own initiative in such procedural questions.
Finally, while in the past, including the Chair's ruling earlier this year, time constraints may have dictated a certain course of action, this is not the case here. The hon. member for Calgary Centre raised his point well in time, and long before the day when the House will actually deal with their adoption in the bill based thereon.
Privilege-Mr. Flis
Accordingly, 1 must now find that Agriculture vote 30, Public Works vote L70, Supply and Services vote 5, Transport vote 110, Energy, Mines and Resources votes 35, 40 and 45, External Affairs votes L45 and L60 and Finance vote LI 5, as contained in the main estimates 1981-82, are not properly before the House, and they are thereby ordered to be deleted therefrom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the fifty-first report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege is twofold. For two days now, 1 have been trying to obtain the floor to put a motion recognizing the valuable contribution that the Philippine people have made to the growth of Canada; because as the House knows, today, June 12, marks the national day of the Philippines.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member sent me an advance copy of the motion which he wanted to put under Standing Order 43 today. He was not obliged to send me a copy of his motion, but since he did, I read it. The hon. member knows, of course, that Standing Order 43 deals with matters of urgent and pressing necessity. Matters must be urgent and pressing to be put in the House. I would not have been able to put it to the House because it is not a legitimate type of motion under Standing Order 43. Therefore, knowing what his motion was about, I did not recognize him.
I do have to tell the hon. member that he has been in the habit of putting several motions of this nature to the House on the occasion of national days. While that is extremely commendable and there are a lot of wonderful things we would like to do in the House, our rules are set in order to ensure that only matters which should, in fact, be dealt with in the House are dealt with, and again, at certain times.
Therefore, I would ask the hon. member, indeed all hon. members-because the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) is not the only one who uses Standing Order 43 to congratulate someone-to co-operate with the Chair and not attempt to put to the House under Standing Order 43 motions to congratulate certain people.
10548

June 12, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Wenman


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I would not have raised the question of privilege if precedent was not set in this House. But-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is commenting on a ruling which I have just made. I am sure that he accepts the terms of the ruling. I know he is not happy with it. I know he would have liked to mention the national day of The Philippines, but I simply cannot accept that.


MR. WENMAN-DEFINITION OF SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege is both a question of privilege and a point of order. I find my ability to-


Madam Speaker:: Order. It cannot be both. The hon. member will have to make up his mind.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I am bringing it forward specifically as a question of privilege, and there are other elements which Your Honour may want to consider in another format later.
At any rate, I find that my capacity as a member of Parliament has been inhibited due to Your Honour's interpretations of the rules and procedures of this House. I refer specifically to supplementary questions. I feel my privilege has been disrupted. On several days I had questions prepared which fitted in with other supplementary questions that had been asked. Under a previous Speaker in a previous House, my privilege was further extended. First, there was a direct definition of what is a supplementary question. I would ask that that definition be restated by the Speaker as it relates to second supplementary questions of members and also supplementary questions to questions asked initially by other members. Fewer questions are being asked in the House because those who are recognized automatically ask two questions each. As well, when a supplementary question is called, the second supplementary is not being recognized. This has happened on three or four occasions.
Could Your Honour tell me what the procedure is as it relates to the previous House and also advise me of your interpretation?


Madam Speaker:: First of all, the hon. member does not have a question of privilege. Through a question of privilege, hon. members cannot raise the fact that they have not been recognized in the House. I think I have described the policy and the interpretation which the Speaker makes in the conduct of question period.
The hon. member invites me to define what is a supplementary question. I am not sure he would gain if I were to be so brave as to attempt to define a supplementary question. I think the spirit of it is that the question ought to be supplementary, that is to say, a follow up on whatever answer a minister has given in the House. If I were to follow that procedure very rigidly, I think I would have to rule out many supplementary
questions. Sometimes a new question is asked dealing with new subjects.
I think we are governed by custom. When the rules are not too precise, the custom has been that when a member is recognized he is usually granted a question and what we call a supplementary. In other words, a member has two questions. He has a chance to follow up on whatever has been given as an answer in the House.
The hon. member is complaining that he has not been recognized sufficiently often.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: No, Madam Speaker, I am not.


Madam Speaker:: I am delighted to hear that. That is very rare!
I just want to tell hon. members that in an attempt to be as fair as I possibly can, I do have a cumulative list. It used to be for a few days back; now I keep a cumulative list of members who rise in the House during question period. As days go on, their names are struck off when I recognize them.
Today I had quite a number of members who happened to be on the cumulative list but were not in the House. I will try to put them on the list for another day. Members know that I do extend the question period slightly on Fridays to give people a chance to be involved in the question period. 1 would counsel hon. members to be in the House on Fridays if they are really eager to take part in question period.
That is the policy and that is the interpretation. I do not think I have departed from what my predecessors did. I am, however, having a great deal of trouble with the length of questions. I used to have as many as ten Conservative members asking questions during the question period. I am now down to recognizing seven or eight members. I say I am down; I should say the Conservatives are down. I say "I" because I am concerned that they all be included. This cannot be done every day. I have noticed in the last two or three weeks that I am down to recognizing seven or eight members. I regret that, but I have a time restriction and I have to permit members of the New Democratic Party to ask questions. They cannot be down to two questions a day. That would be impossible, taking into account the proportion of New Democratic Party members in this House. If members asked shorter questions, I do not think they would lose much and other members would then gain additional opportunities to be recognized during the question period.


MR. MCKINNON-MOVE OF RCMP HEADQUARTERS &quot;E&quot; DIVISION
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, once again I am in the position where a member with a question of privilege is expected to apprise the Speaker of it at the earliest possible moment and at the same time prepare the case to support his contention that he has a question of privilege. The time constraints in that regard are very difficult indeed.
My question of privilege today has to do with a House order that was passed requiring the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan)
June 12, 1981

to supply all the papers, documents and reports concerning the RCMP move from Victoria to Vancouver. This House order was passed on June 3. Last night I received my copy of it. It in no way complies with the House order.
I am sure you will realize how serious this question of privilege is, and I would ask you to extend to me the courtesy of additional time to prepare precedents and evidence to support my question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: I will look into the matter and take it under advisement.


POINT OF ORDER
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a brief point of order. I listened with great interest to Your Honour's explanation of the way in which question period is managed to give equity to members. I noticed Your Honour mentioned a desirable number of questions for each of the opposition parties.
May I express my hope that when we are considering reform of the rules of the House we may have some discussion in the House, and perhaps at that time Your Honour might consider the advisability of increasing the number of questions available to supporters of the government. One could perhaps make a case that our constituents have an interest in seeing us raise matters of public policy in the House as well as in caucus.


Madam Speaker:: I do not think that matter is the object of a rule. It is a decision which the Speaker makes on her own. I will agree with the hon. member that the government side has not been particularly spoiled with opportunities to ask questions because of the constraints I have which were described earlier. I have not given the government side the numbers which legitimately, I suppose, it could expect.
Hon. members from the government side realize that the government does have an excellent opportunity to express itself through the ministers who answer questions, a procedure which does take a lot of question period time. That is why backbenchers on the government side are not recognized as often as they would desire, That, too, is a matter of custom. Also the custom is that members on the government side do not get the privilege of a supplementary question.
I am in the hands of the House leaders, if they want to discuss this matter among themselves. I know how to establish the proportion that members on the opposition side should have in the Question Period, but I must say it is much more difficult to establish the proportion that should be given to the government side. I have looked at precedents and I have been guided by them. However, I am willing to discuss this question with the House leaders.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE '80s

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): I have the honour to present the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on Employment Opportunities for the '80s. If the House pleases, I intend to move concurrence later this day.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Vot.es and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, if the House consents, I move that the report to which I have just referred be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,720, 2,106, 2,218, 2,244, 2,427 and 2,454.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	What is the average number printed, per issue, when a new stamp is issued?
2.	How many stamps to commemorate the late Right. Hon. John G. Diefen-baker were printed and how many were allocated to the post offices in the (a) House of Commons (b) Senate?


Gary Francis McCauley: 1.	For the period April 1, 1980, to September 30, 1980, the average number of stamps printed was as follows: for a 17-cent commemorative stamp 22,000,000, for a 35-cent commemorative stamp 12,000,000.
2.	24,850,000.
(a) and (b)
There is no allocation process for the post offices in the House of Commons and the Senate. These post offices determine the quantities they require and order accordingly.

June 12, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKnight: 1.	Was there a change in the labelling of farm chemicals from per acre measurement to hectare measurement and, if so (a) under what authority (b) on what date (c) for what reason?
2.	Did the Metric Commission receive briefs requesting that the labelling of agricultural chemicals be in hectares rather than in acres and, if so, from which organizations and industries?
3.	Does the chemical industry have to comply with the hectare changeover requirement and, if so (a) since what date (b) what is the penalty for non-compliances?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. Yes.
(a)	Under the authority of regulations under the Pest Control Products Act administered by Agriculture Canada.
(b)	Effective from January 1, 1981, labels and instructions for those products governed by PCP regulation are required to show metric units only.
(c)	In accordance with the recommendation made by the agricultural chemicals industry in Canada, in support of Canada's conversion to the metric system of measurements to achieve the policy goal stated in the 1970 White Paper on Metric Conversion in Canada, that " ... a single, coherent measurement system based on metric units should come to be used for all measurement purposes required under legislation, and generally be accepted for all measurement purposes".
2. In order to achieve the policy goal of Canada's metric conversion, Metric Commission Canada established a structure of steering and sector committees, covering all sectors of the economy, with representatives of industries, businesses, labour, consumers, education and appropriate government departments and agencies. As part of this structure, the Canadian Agricultural Chemicals Association has been participating in the sector committee for chemicals and chemical products, which is responsible for the investigation, planning, scheduling and implementation of metric conversion in its area of interest. The Canadian Agricultural Chemicals Association has also been operating its own metric conversion committee, which has been feeding the association's input to the metric conversion plan developed by the sector committee. At its fifth meeting on March 21, 1974, the sector committee adopted the National Standard of Canada-Canadian Metric Practice Guide as the governing document for metric units to be used by the industry. At the eighth meeting of the sector committee on November 21, 1974, in discussing the development of a sector plan for metric conversion, the representative of the Canadian Agricultural Chemicals Association stated that his industry would find metric conversion advantageous, resulting in a standardization of containers. These decisions are reflected in the metric conversion plan prepared by the sector
committee and approved for publication by Metric Commission Canada on October 26, 1976.
In May, 1976, the Canadian Agricultural Chemicals Association through its metric conversion committee published a recommended list of units and container sizes to replace imperial units and sizes. In April, 1979, the association published an expanded Metric Practice Guide for the Canadian pesticides industry. The adoption of metric units meant that acres were replaced by hectares.
Recognizing that agricultural chemicals are controlled by government regulations pertaining to their sale and usage, that industry has been in continual consultation with Agriculture Canada with respect to the timing of metric conversion and also the usage instructions in metric units. In April, 1977, the Canadian Agricultural Chemicals Association wrote to Agriculture Canada requesting them to "arrange for a change in the measurements used in the Pest Control Products Act from the present system to SI units." On October 3, 1977, the association wrote again to Agriculture Canada on the matter of hectare versus acre and noted that "a system using part SI and part non-metric would ... create a state of confusion and introduce the possibility of greater errors ..."
At its eighteenth meeting on September 13, 1977, the sector committee on Chemicals and Chemical Products went on record as unanimously adopting the hectare for land measurement.
3. Yes (a) January, 1981. (b) Prosecution under the Pest Control Products Act.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Are any steps planned by CBC to improve the calibre and to increase the scope of national news coverage by CBOT TV in Ottawa and, if so, what are they?
2.	Is the viewing audience for the 6 p.m. CBOT newscast below that for the 6 p.m. CJOH newscast and, if so, by what amount?
3.	Does CBC channel 4 carry as much (a) national and parliamentary (b) regional news as CTV channel 13 and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The CBC considers that the calibre and scope of CBOT's national news coverage is already excellent. "The National" at 11 p.m. daily provides CBOT and other CBC network stations with thorough and complete coverage of national news. The full resources of the CBC's national news department are available for such CBOT local news programs as "Newsday", which receives national and other news items fed from the network. In addition, wide national news coverage is provided by the programs named below in the answer to part
3.	All CBC stations constantly strive to improve their productions as staff and funds permit, and CBOT is no exception.
2.	See reply to question No. 1,968 answered April 2, 1981.
3.	CBOT carries local, regional, national and international news as follows:
June 12, 1981

"Newsday"	Monday to Friday	18 h- 19 h"The National"	Daily	23 h-23 h 25 (weekends 23 h-23 h 15)"Newsday Final"	Daily	23 h 25- 23 h 35 (weekends 23 h 15-23 h 25)"CBC Saturday Evening News"	Saturday	I 18 h-18 h 30"CBC Sunday Evening News"	Sunday	17 h-17 h 20
The above programs also feature government and parliamentary news items, and these areas are also covered in whole or in part by the following programs:
"This Week in Parliament" Sunday 17h20-18h "CBC Newsmagazine"	Monday 22h-22h30
"The Watson Report"	Monday 22h30-23h
Parliamentary news is sometimes included in other programs, such as "Take 30" and "The Fifth Estate".
Because the number of such items on television stations can vary from program to program, week to week and season to season, no valid comparison between stations can be made.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does CBC require as a matter of policy a stereotyped style on the part of their newscasters?
2.	Does CBC stipulate the use of the news style used by former CBOT anchorman Ab Douglas in preference to the style used by Max Keeping of CTV's Ottawa outlet?


Peter A. Stollery: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1 and 2. No. There are, however, a number of general requirements, as there are for any position, as well as some with specific reference to TV newscasting, such as knowledge of speech techniques and good on-air presence.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	(a) During the fiscal years 1979-80 and 1980-81, what amount of public funds was advanced to the Trident Aircraft Co. of Sidney, British Columbia and for what purpose (b) what amount is to be advanced during the fiscal year 1981 -82 and for what purpose?
2.	(a) Is Mr. Derek Lock still attached to the Trident Aircraft Co. (b) did he re-enter the Public Service and, if so, in what capacity and in which department?
3.	Does the government have any commitments to the Trident Aircraft Co. and, if so, what are they?


David Michael Collenette: 1 am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion as follows:
1. (a) Public funds in the form of a repayable contribution were advanced by IT&C to Trident Aircraft Limited as follows:
Fiscal year 1979/80	$1,300,000.
Fiscal year 1980/81	$2,700,000.
Order Paper Questions
The repayable contribution was to assist in the re-structuring of the company to enable the completion and production start-up of the Trigull amphibian aircraft.
(b) IT&C has not planned to advance any funds to Trident Aircraft Limited for 1981/82.
2. (a) Mr. Derek Lock is no longer with Trident Aircraft Limited and has left the Public Service.
(b) Not applicable.
3. Under the Canada-British Columbia Industrial Development Subsidiary Agreement, DREE has agreed to cost share with the province a low interest loan in the amount of $2.9 million to the British Columbia Development Corporation (BCDC) to finance the construction of 110,000 square feet of manufacturing space for Trident Aircraft Ltd. at the Victoria International Airport. This loan to BCDC, which will build the space for Trident on a lease-back basis, has as one of its conditions, the requirement that Trident must have all its financing in place before any disbursement will be made on the loan. As this condition has not been met, no DREE funds have been disbursed to date under the terms of the agreement with BCDC for the Trident facility, and in view of the cessation of Trident, it is not anticipated that any money will be disbursed in the future.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past five years, how many insurance claims were paid by the Export Development Corporation and what was the total paid in each year?
2.	How many of the claims originated in the United States and, in each year, what were the claims as a percentage of the total amount paid?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (Trade)):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned, Export Development Corporation states that:
Year	Number	Total Amount Paid (S thousands)1976	95	$ 2,2951977	93	3,0471978	104	6,6571979	136	3,9141980	109	10,382Year	Number	Per cent of Total Amount Paid1976	34	15.0%1977	20	5.0%1978	27	1.9%1979	38	4.2%1980	46	3.1%
June 12, 1981
Air Transport


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 2,385 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

dot-GRANTS TO OTHER THAN FEDERAL AIRPORTS


Mr. Herbert: During the past five years, did airports administered by provincial or municipal authorities receive operating or capital grants from the Department of Transport and, if so, which airports?
Return tabled.


David Michael Collenette: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that Bill S-7, to provide for the prohibition of certain international air services, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole.
He said: Madam Speaker, the objective of the bill before us is to implement in a concrete and practical way the government's commitment to combat aerial hijacking, a particularly prevalent form of international terrorism. The bill is a direct result of the Declaration on Hijacking made at the Bonn summit in July, 1978. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was personally instrumental in the final formulation of the text of that important declaration, which was jointly issued by the seven heads of state and government of the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. The text is not long, but to save time I will not read it.
The obligation to extradite or prosecute hijackers has a firm basis in international law. It is, for example, an essential operative provision in the 1970 Hague Convention for the Suppression of the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, to which Canada and over 100 other states are parties. However, the difficulty the international community faces in combatting hijacking, and indeed various other forms of terrorism, is not
the absence of international agreements defining offences and setting out appropriate penalties. The difficulty is, rather, the reluctance of governments to face up to their obligations when it comes to taking appropriate legal action against alleged offenders. Indeed, as recent events bear witness, some governments, for political reasons even condone, if not openly support, the activities of the wrongdoers.
It is this kind of culpability or attitude on the part of governments that the declaration is directed against. The severing of air links with the offending state, or defaulting state, to use the language of the bill, is intended to act as a kind of sanction to induce compliance with international obligations. In addition, the severing of air links can be seen, in appropriate circumstances, as a gesture whereby Canada dissociates itself from governments which are not prepared to take all necessary steps to deal with terrorists.
Clause 3 of the bill provides for determination of default by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Such determination would be the result of close consultation with the other six governments which would each be monitoring and assessing the follow-up to any given hijacking incident. This activity would be undertaken primarily by the embassies of the seven governments in the country or countries involved in the hijacking. Based on the advice of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Transport, the governor in council would then be in a position to determine what prohibitive action, if any, is appropriate in the circumstances. Hon. members will see in Clause 3(1) of the bill the range of possibilities that are open in this regard. In exceptionally serious cases it is conceivable that all six prohibitions would be invoked.
The bill also provides for amendment or repeal of an order of prohibition as well as for penalties for air carriers which fail to comply with the order.
The government considers it desirable to enact specific legislation for implementation of the Bonn declaration even though existing powers would permit some measures of the kind of action required by the declaration. Because of the often fast-moving and unpredictable nature of hijacking incidents, the government should have available a procedure that is clearly established in advance and can be implemented on short notice.
As hon. members will see, the bill is brief and uncomplicated. It provides for drastic measures, but we believe that in situations which often involve loss of life and the taking of innocent hostages, drastic measures are called for.
The essential element to be considered here is the obligation to extradite or prosecute hijackers. We are convinced that unless governments act resolutely to deal with hijackers, such incidents of terrorism will increase. We also believe that terrorists would largely be ineffective were it not for the support or acquiescence of some governments, achieved by intimidation. The Bonn declaration has put the world on notice that the Government of Canada, and the six other governments involved, will not stand idly by while international law is flouted and terrorism condoned and encouraged.
June 12, 1981

Passage of this bill will ensure that Canada is in a position to comply fully with the terms of the Bonn declaration. The forthcoming Ottawa summit will again provide an opportunity for the seven governments to reaffirm their commitment to combatting terrorism. It is noteworthy, I believe, that the previous government in effect confirmed a decision already taken by the former Liberal government that special legislation should be enacted to implement the declaration. This is therefore not a partisan issue.
The efforts of Canada alone are not enough to resolve this problem, but if all governments were to act in the same spirit, the situation would be greatly improved.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to lend my party's support to the implementation of Bill S-7. It is a bill that addresses only one part of a greater, over-all evil that has left no nation in the world untouched. The evil to which I refer is that of international terrorism.
The philosophy of violence that is a trademark of terrorists and their organizations has been, and continues to be, repugnant to any nation which adheres to a civilized, democratic and law-abiding way of life and equally towards peaceful co-existence. Terrorism, however, is not a new phenomenon to any country. There are many types and examples of terrorism that one could cite from history, but they pale into insignificance when compared to the nature or style of today's international terrorism.
It is a phenomenon that knows no borders, respects no laws-be they domestic or international-and is marked by indiscriminate targetting, the senseless loss of lives and a total lack of morality.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, terrorism is a sign of our times, for we live in a world riddled with strife and violence, caused in part by political, cultural, economic and religious division. Because of these facts, it is vital to world security that the international community resists terrorism in a unified and effective approach.
The subject matter of Bill S-7 deals with the unlawful seizure of an aircraft and its passengers, a criminal act more commonly known as "hijacking". Hijacking acts have been committed by a variety of terrorist groups or individuals. No member in this House needs reminding that in such hijackings violence is always used and, tragically, has often resulted in the taking of innocent lives.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Guigan) has said, Bill S-7 owes its existence to the declaration on hijacking adopted at the Bonn summit. On January 17, 1978, the seven nations participating in that Bonn summit issued a declaration which became known as the "Bonn Declaration on Hijacking". That Bonn declaration was reaffirmed at the Tokyo economic summit in June, 1979.
This declaration highlighted a problem that has confronted nations who are attempting to combat terrorism in all its
Air Transport
forms. The problem is that certain nations which have been designated by hijackers as their final destination have in the past failed or refused to prosecute or extradite the hijackers and, in some cases, have welcomed them as heroes.
With this rather distressing conduct of certain nations the ensuing problem has been that those countries committed to combatting terrorism have been consistently frustrated and hamstrung by the action of these nations in their refusal to co-operate, refusing to abide by the principles of international law or any civilized domestic code of law.
These actions do not offer much hope for some form of peaceful global co-existence. These actions only cultivate frustration, mistrust and a sense of futility. How can law-abiding nations hope to combat terrorism effectively when the offenders know full well that they will not face prosecution or extradition by certain states? It is imperative that these criminals be given notice that they will find no safe haven throughout the world and will ultimately face full and just punishment for their criminal activities.
There is a serious responsibility placed on the nations which believe in this goal of deterring terrorism not only to support international declarations such as the ones adopted at The Hague, Montreal and Bonn, but in addition to bolster them with domestic legislation having a specific aim toward pressuring other nations into punishing terrorists who unlawfully seize aircraft, threaten innocent crew members and passengers and sometimes murder them. Bill S-7 will serve, hopefully, as a notice to those who support terrorism that Canada intends to honour its international commitments.
As stated before, the campaign against terrorism by all law-abiding nations must be founded on both a collective and individual desire to attain that goal. I believe quite sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that the debate on this piece of legislation should transcend partisan politics because passage of this bill is crucial to Canada's international reputation.
Adoption of specific legislation such as Bill S-7 will undoubtedly give clear authority to the government and, of course, greater certainty when dealing with hijacking incidents. In the case where a hijacking occurs and Canada finds a state in default of the legislation, Bill S-7 will enable the government to respond and act with greater speed. Needless to say, Sir, action and, to a lesser degree, speed are two important elements required to give this commitment credibility and effectiveness.
I would like to say that the passage of such legislation is long overdue. Admittedly, the frequency or rate of hijackings has decreased somewhat, but now is not the time for nations to become apathetic or lethargic in their efforts toward deterring terrorism or, in this case, hijacking.
Terrorism, unfortunately, will continue to be practised by a number of misguided individuals, organizations and states. It is our duty and responsibility now to stand up and be counted among those in the world who are opposed to such evil practices. It must be made clear to terrorists that no state will entertain any demands, that terrorists' acts will be universally

June 12, 1981
Air Transport
condemned, and in the end offenders will be brought to justice. This legislation is a move in that direction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy on this occasion to join with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) in making this a piece of legislation which we are dealing with on a non-partisan basis and which we all support.
The spokesmen for my party who deal with external affairs and with air transport in particular have studied the bill very carefully. We have dealt with it in the New Democratic Party caucus and I am authorized on behalf of my party to say that we are quite prepared today to give this bill its second reading and to deal with it in Committee of the Whole, and also give it third reading.
We support the statements which have been made by the minister and by the previous speaker regarding the concern we feel and must feel about terrorism, about increasing violence in the world. We are glad that the seven nations that meet in summit conferences reached the agreement set out in the Bonn communique, and we are glad we now have before us a piece of legislation that will implement that communique.
Since what the three of us are saying is that we are prepared to support this bill, there really is no need to spin out the debate. But it did occur to me that since all of us have been referring to the Bonn communique of July 17, 1978, and since it is rather short, it might be useful to have its actual words in the pages of Hansard. As I say, it is the one issued by the seven nations at the summit conference in Bonn on July 17, 1978, and it is as follows:
The Heads of State and Government, concerned about terrorism and the taking of hostages, declare that their Governments will intensify their joint efforts to combat international terrorism. To this end, in cases where a country refuses extradition or prosecution of those who have hijacked an aircraft and/or do not return such aircraft, the Heads of State and Government are jointly resolved that their Governments shall take immediate action to cease all flights to that country. At the same time, their Governments will initiate action to halt all incoming flights from that country or from any country by the airlines of the country concerned.
I like the last sentence:
They urge other governments to join them in this commitment.
What we have before us now is a bill to provide Canada's implementation of that commitment, and I want to say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that I welcome the suggestion that we should have appropriate legislation on the books so that if any action is necessary there will be legislative authority for the appropriate order in council which might have to be issued.
We welcome the introduction of this legislation by this government, the same legislation the last government was ready to introduce, and I think I can say that the House is prepared to pass it through all stages before we rise for lunch.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Francis in the Chair.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
On Clause 5-Offence.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before Clause 5 carries I should like to invite the minister to make a comment on it. It is the clause which provides for a penalty of $25,000. It does not say whether that is a total penalty, or $25,000 per day, or what have you. Some of my colleagues who have studied this bill felt at one point that it would be desirable to raise the amount of that fine. They had discussions with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder if the minister could give the reason, in the case of such a serious offence, the penalty is so low.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Chairman, the matter which is now raised by the hon. member was discussed in the other place and there, with our concurrence, the fine was raised from $10,000 to $25,000. It is our interpretation that this applies to each day on each offence; that, as I said in my address, in exceptionally serious cases it is conceivable that all six prohibitions could be invoked; and that there could be a number of offences committed simultaneously, each of which for each day would trigger a fine of $25,000.
The reason for not going above that figure is not to spare the perpetrators of any acts under this legislation, but to keep it at the level of an offence punishable on summary conviction in order to simplify the procedures. I had mentioned that we do have some legislative measures already in effect which could enable us to take such action, but they are more cumbersome, and one of the principal purposes of this legislation, as I said in my address, is that the government must have a procedure which can be implemented on short notice. The expeditious procedures here are able to be taken, in part because we do not go above $25,000, which would involve us in an indictable offence and more complicated procedures.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour) moved: that Bill S-4, to amend the Department of Labour Act, as reported
June 12, 1981

(without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand there would be agreement on all sides to move the motion for third reading now. The minister would then call it one o'clock and speak at two o'clock when we resume.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Gerald Augustine Regan: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in standing to speak at the third reading stage of this bill the most appropriate thing I could do at this moment would be to ask if I may call it one o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 12.57 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. When the House arose at one o'clock p.m., the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) had 1 been given the floor.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might ask the House for unanimous consent to allow the minister to speak a second or third time if we have any questions to ask as a result of his speech on third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister is proposing third reading and the House would have to give unanimous consent for the Chair to recognize the Minister of Labour for another round.


David Michael Collenette: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a most unusual request. If there could be some guarantee that there would be just one question from the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), perhaps we could facilitate him.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The reason for asking the question is that we went through the procedures pretty fast at five minutes to one and I had expected the minister would say a few words on third reading. From that speech I could then decide whether or not I was going to ask any questions. My point is that I understand the minister
Department of Labour Act
cannot speak more than once on third reading, so I am asking for unanimous consent to have him answer any questions we have.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that, as is sometimes said, when the minister finishes the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) might ask a question or two before the minister sits down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Provided the same privilege is extended to other members.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I think there is no problem in accommodating one member who perhaps was not at the committee when this matter was discussed. But if we are now suggesting a protracted question period where everyone has the right to question the minister on third reading, I think that would be a little too much to ask.
We are quite willing to accommodate a question by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, who might not have been here earlier or who might not have attended the committee meetings; but I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the hon. member might want to ask a question and the minister might want to answer, is a frequent practice. However, to extend that rule to all members when we have other business to discuss would, I think, be a little too much to ask.


Mr. Hawkes:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to understand the commitment from the parliamentary secretary. Those who were not at committee and did not have-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There appears to be agreement that the Minister of Labour has the floor. At the end of his speech he would entertain a question from the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I had indicated that I was rising to speak on third reading of Bill S-4, an act to amend the Department of Labour Act of 1900. In doing so, may I say that I am pleased and a little surprised to see that there might be sufficient interest in a bill which is relatively narrow in its scope as to generate some questions. We will deal with those matters as they arise, perhaps at the end of my remarks.
I imagine the large majority of the members of the House are familiar with the objective of this amendment which, in effect, would eliminate the legal requirement for the Department of Labour to publish the Labour Gazette and its companion La Gazette du Travail. I also suppose that hon. members may recall that this enabling legislation was originally placed before the House in December of 1978 and again reintroduced in October of 1979. Finally, second reading was last June 6. In

June 12, 1981
Department of Labour Act
effect, the bill was introduced by the former Liberal Government and died with the dissolution of that Parliament.
It was then introduced by the Conservative government. When that government ceased to exist, since the bill had not made its way through the House we introduced it once again and it is before the House today for third reading.
Perhaps it is necessary for me to provide a brief history, since some hon. members are perhaps not familiar with the earlier deliberations on this bill or the history of the Labour Gazette. The statutory requirement that the Labour Gazette be published monthly by the Department of Labour goes back to 1900 when the Department of Labour really came into existence with a piece of legislation which also provided the statutory requirement that this publication occur monthly.
Prior to 1900 almost all of the labour law in the country was provincial. It was limited and it certainly lacked greatly in uniformity. One could say that from the time that the first federal legislation in the labour field was passed in 1900 the federal legislation was adopted by a variety of governments and used as a showpiece, if you like, as a way for the provinces to follow. This resulted in a general pattern of uniformity of legislation evolving in the succeeding years.
It is interesting to note that the first editor of the Labour Gazette was a young man by the name of William Lyon Mackenzie King. He had prepared a report on the state of working conditions and other matters which related to labour in the country. His report was prepared in 1898 for the then postmaster general, Mr. Mulock. Subsequently, when the postmaster general brought forth the legislation in 1900 he enticed Mackenzie King to become the first editor of the Labour Gazette and, in effect, also the first deputy minister of the department, which I believe took place in September of that same year. Thus, this publication which could and would go out of existence with the passage of this legislation actually dates back that far and has had a distinguished first editor.
The Labour Gazette played a key role for many years in relation to the publication of statistics and other facts which relate to industrial relations in the country. I think it made a very substantial contribution to a better understanding among all parties of the actual facts and developments in the labour scene. But times change and, perhaps, the Labour Gazette can best be described as having become a victim of the changing times. Its original need existed as a consequence of an absolute vacuum in relation to publications on subjects of that kind.
With the passing years there were more and more publications relating to labour matters, some of them put out by provincial governments and some by private agencies, and, indeed, others put out by the federal government. I think it is interesting to note that the requirement that the Labour Gazette be published monthly also came to be a bit of rigidity in relation to better serving the interests, because from the point of view of the type of statistics which are useful to management, labour and other people involved in industrial relations, quarterly publications are often more useful than monthly ones.
This rigidity perhaps led to a variety of other publications taking over part of the original role of the Labour Gazette. Toward the end the publication had changed very considerably in its character and had really become a forum for the expression of opinions and trends in relation to the whole subject of industrial relations. That was a useful purpose, but I think the essence of the consideration by the two previous governments, as well as this one, in introducing the legislation to remove the statutory requirement that such a magazine bear such a name, and that it be published monthly, was the cost in relation to recovery. The fee which could be realized by sale was in the vicinity of $7.50 per issue, while the cost of publication amounted to about $60 per issue. One can see that there was a loss of over $50 per copy. A former minister indicated that between 1978 and 1980 the loss would have amounted to something in the vicinity of $400,000 had the publication been continued monthly.
There are two salient points in relation to why the legislation comes forward. First, the place has been taken by a great number of other types of publication, and I will mention some of them briefly later on. Second, the costs in relation to the number of readers and the value of that particular publication has become prohibitive. I might add that today a great deal of the communication of much of the information which formerly appeared in the Labour Gazette is dealt with on a very frequent basis by electronic communication, as well as by the greater use of other forms of communication. This does not mean that the Department of Labour is in any way receding from its responsibility to circulate statistics and other materials with reference to industrial relations.
I would now like to mention the names of a few of the other publications which the Department of Labour puts out. They are: Base Rate Increases, published quarterly and annually; Calendar of Expiring Collective Agreements, which is published annually; Report on Strikes and Lock-Outs in Canada, which is published annually; Wage Rates. Salaries and Hours of Work, published annually; Arbitration Services Reporter, which is published monthly; Labour Standards in Canada, which is published annually; Legislative Review, which is published annually; Collective Bargaining Review, which is published monthly; Wage Developments, published annually; Wage Developments Resulting from Major Collective Bargaining Settlements, published quarterly; Work Stoppages, published monthly; and Working Conditions in the Canadian Industry, published annually. In addition to these publications we have a high level publication entitled The Quality of Working Life, which is becoming more and more important and which is available quarterly upon request.
In addition to all of these publications, Labour Canada is planning a new initiative to replace the Labour Information Bureau which was proposed in Bill C-9. Bill C-9 encountered stiff resistance from the labour movement, especially public sector unions concerned with the proposed bureau's mandate and composition. The new approach, which we believe genuinely acceptable and responsive both to the labour movement and to employer organizations, calls for the establishment of
June 12, 1981

the Industrial Relations Information Service, or IRIS-everything needs to have a name which can be shortened, I guess. IRIS will operate as a service of Labour Canada, providing convenient access to the wealth of public information concerning labour matters which is available from a variety of federal government sources. The primary clientele of IRIS will be active industrial relations practitioners, namely labour and management negotiators, their research support people and third parties, such as mediators and arbitrators. Special legislation is not required for this new service.
[DOT] (M20)
I think that that gives some of the background of the history of this bill and of the Labour Gazette, the interrupted efforts of two previous governments to put this rather slight piece of legislation through the House, and the fact that today we have finally reached third reading of it. Presumably, if this government survives a bit longer than the fate which befell the two previous bills, it will not confront the efforts which I think are generally supported in the House to remove this statutory requirement.
It is, of course, with some sense of history that we recognize that the Labour Gazette, founded by Mackenzie King, in effect, comes to an end after 81 years. However, as I have indicated, this is a consequence of new services, new ways of communicating information and of our changing times.
Finally, I would emphasize that the provision of a forum for independent labour-related opinion still has merit, provided it can be produced at a reasonable cost. It should be noted that the effect of this legislation, while it eliminates the requirement to publish the Labour Gazette and La Gazette du Travail, does not prevent introduction of periodicals under the same or similar title if circumstances justify such action. The bill then, confirms the decision to discontinue these publications.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the minister's remarks helped clarify, in part, what my concern was earlier on a point of order, namely, I was very curious about the way this bill was drafted. I am not a lawyer and I am not the official labour critic. What I am concerned about is that I see a bill in front of me which was originally passed by the Senate a year ago, on May 8. I can understand that with the elections and all the other problems which would occur, there could be a delay. It was the first occasion we had to get it through. Therefore, I have that history fairly straight. However, when I see certain words like "shall" in that paragraph which makes up this new amendment or new legislation repeated twice, my curiosity is aroused very swiftly. I know the difficulty which exists in getting the word "shall" into legislation. The lawyers of justice fight it like the devil is supposed to fight holy water. However, when I see it twice in one paragraph, my curiosity is aroused.
I gather from the minister's speech that he is saying that the Labour Gazette is being discontinued. The legislation which we have before us says:
Department of Labour Act
With a view to the dissemination of accurate statistical and other information relating to the conditions of labour, the Minister shall collect-
That means that the minister is ordered by Parliament. He has no choice but to put out these figures. That is straightforward enough. I will forget the other "shall" for a moment. However, what makes the matter very suspicious is the second term of his bill, which says:
This Act shall be deemed to have come into force on January 1, 1979.
I do not have to be a labour expert at all, probably I do not have to be above the level of a moron, to know that there is something very fishy going on here. What this means to me, although I have no proof, is that they have been collecting these statistics all this time, and this is put in to legitimize by Parliament and give statutory authority to that which has already been done in the last two and one half years. Therefore, these people who have been paid to do this work are now going to have it legitimized by Parliament two and one half years later. When the country is told that we are getting rid of the Labour Gazette, for whatever reason, and the government is now bringing in a bill providing that the department shall do the same thing, and then it is dated back two and one half years, as I said, then all the suspicions of even a moron are raised.
Therefore, my question to the minister, preliminary to my major remarks, is: Is there any correctness to this suspicion that I have that someone is covering up? I think the phrase is "CYA". Are they covering up for the fact that this work has actually been done for the last two and one half years and we must now pay these people legitimately? Is that the reason this bill was made effective two and one half years ago?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) for his question. As one who served here as a young member with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain some 18 years ago, and who followed his very distinguished career as a minister of agriculture prior to that, I have to say that I think this is probably one of the very few times in his career, which I have followed with some close interest, in which he has put an improper interpretation upon a situation.
Actually, the department has the full authority to go ahead, to collect, and to publish material, whether Section 4 of the Department of Labour Act exists or not. Indeed, since the former section is in effect until this bill is passed today, until it goes out, it would also provide authority to publish various types of statistics and documents. For many years, the department has carried on a number of different publications in addition to the Labour Gazette.
Section 2 of the bill provides the retroactivity to January 1, 1979, for a very different reason. It is not the reason of making legitimate the collection and publication of materials that I am now directed to do. Rather, it is because of the fact that the former Conservative and former Liberal governments had ceased the publication of the Labour Gazette, feeling that the passage of the bill was imminent. Therefore, this bill, as were former bills, is dated back to that date to legitimize the fact

June 12, 1981
Department of Labour Act
that the Labour Gazette has not been published since that time. The backdating is for the purpose of dealing with the outgoing section, not for the purpose of dealing with the incoming Section 4.
I trust that explains the situation to the hon. member. I can assure him that the drafting of Section 4 in such a way as to have the word "shall" in it at least twice, as the former section had also, is perhaps aimed at assuring any people who had regret upon the passage of the Labour Gazette that the responsibility will still be on the Department of Labour to continue to collect and publish statistics, though not necessarily solely through a labour gazette, and not necessarily on a monthly basis rather than another length of time. That, I trust, is an explanation which meets the concern and constructive comment of the hon. member.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for trying to explain what has aroused my curiosity. Quite frankly, I am still confused, because if all that he said was completely true, why not just make the bill effective June 1 of this year? Then the hon. member would have no problem with suspicions like mine. I will just leave it at that because it is not the main subject I want to speak to.
What struck me about this bill was the double use of the word "shall". 1 am now informed by the minister that it was in the previous legislation. I presume the second "shall" was not in the previous legislation. It reads:
-shall institute and conduct inquiries into important industrial questions upon which adequate information may not at present be available.
Is that part new? If it is not new, then certainly there has been a lot of laxity in the last 50 years since Mackenzie King was in this chamber. I am simply pointing out that the phrase "shall institute and conduct inquiries into important industrial questions" is a very significant and pregnant type of phrase.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It is in the former section.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the proposals 1 shall put forward it is clear, then, that to help the job-creating purpose of the Department of Labour, as opposed to settling disputes, is very important to this country.
This country has suffered terribly this last 50 to 60 years because we have never had any follow through on the work we have done in the various sections of government that would add to the final production, namely, new jobs. Everyone knows and accepts that Canada has what the world needs. Every child from the time he starts school spends his life learning how much Canada has in the form of wealth of all sorts. We always come up against the fact that even though we have it all, we are not doing very much with it in a co-ordinated manner. We call "doing something with it" intelligently by various names. One of the names that we use for it is "industrial strategy".
I have some knowledge of the history of the pre-1914 period. I have a lot more knowledge of the events of the 1920s and 1930s. I might say I have a very intimate knowledge of the events in the 1960s. One complaint Canadians have a right to hold against governments is that they have failed to push through the work done in bits and pieces here and there in government and outside of the government in getting a clear-cut industrial strategy so that the whole world knows where we are going.
One thing that holds this up, which I tie to labour, is the input into final decisions, which never seem to come from governments. Labour needs to know where the opportunities are. Labour should be able to throw its considerable weight, which it has in Canadian public affairs, in the direction of making more jobs for the people they represent.
For example, the Association of Canadian Geographers published a report as a contribution to the centennial year of 1967 which set out the need for Canada to immediately press forward with doing those things which would facilitate four new industrial complexes. These were to be set up in Canada to relieve the pressure on the one complex we do have running along the St. Lawrence to Windsor and Sarnia, which is obviously heating up and getting overcrowded. The cost of living is going up so fast that we are pricing those workers out of jobs.
We have had a series of crises over the last 20 years and we have handled them on an ad hoc basis. That whole area is now paying the price for the lack of a planned decision to shift the emphasis toward developing areas needed for industrial complexes which will spread the load and reduce the growth rate in the overheated area.
I will not quote all of the industrial complexes in this bill, but I want to make it very clear that the people of Ontario and the people of Quebec are suffering terribly by the lack of decision-making over the last 25 or 30 years. This downward trend of the economy in Ontario and the danger to the southwestern part of Ontario at the present time is very great. If we could take the reading of this bill seriously and really believe that a minister of labour would insist that the word "shall" in the legislation means shall, and that the minister could make certain that his department does produce studies on industrial questions, not only would the labour force be served well but we would all be served well.
I know that these things are being done in half a dozen different places in federal departments. I know they are being done at the provincial government level, but as the Resources for the Tomorrow Conference of 1961 showed, there was no driving force to pull it all together to make an industrial strategy.
Every time problems are raised, particularly over the last 20 years, all that government has done about them is to reorganize and set up new departments. More and more departments are set up, and they are all doing the same thing. The more we reorganize, the more the problems grow. Departments are so thoroughly organized in their own fields that they are not co-ordinating their work. We could have much better action if
June 12, 1981

we had a powerful political force behind these positive suggestions from the labour people.
The farmers of Canada have been a little more successful in dealing with governments over the last 50 or 60 years. They have organized their political weight behind some things that were good for their industry and governments have been pretty good at coming along and meeting those needs under pressure. We have never had that type of pressure on growth from the labour side. All we have done for labour is to set up machinery to settle disputes between labour and management and we are now given statistics.
Now we have before us a clause which has been there for 50 or 60 years, according to the minister, which says that they shall institute and conduct inquiries into important industrial questions. Maybe they have diagnosed that industrial questions do not include getting more jobs. But we really need some federal department to use its political clout, such as the Department of Agriculture, to get things done. We will certainly not get action from this group of faceless ministers who do not want to interfere with one another. They are all too frightened to move. They are too fat to fight and too frightened to run.
That is the situation. There is an opportunity here which would make labour a powerful force in this Elouse if it spoke through its minister and threw its weight behind the industrial side, giving it a good chance for more jobs in Canada, not only because we want jobs in Canada but because we can do things cheaper and better. The consumers of the whole world would benefit because they would be able to get more of what they want at a cheaper price.
We have demonstrated this type of success through the steel industry. Canada has led the world in the last 20 years in the production of steel. This can be measured by the wages paid, the quality of production and the final cost. Our cost to produce steel is $100 a tonne cheaper than in the United States. Canada produces steel cheaper than Taiwan, Japan, Western Europe, Singapore and Australia.
We have this great ability to produce better quality goods, to pay higher wages and to do things cheaper than any other country in the world. But we are not doing anything to encourage it. It is an industrial question that labour could take a hand in. It is said as a rule that you cannot sell because things are too costly. That is not true with many of the items we can produce in Canada.
I shall cite another example which is a little more current. The civil servants of the federal government and the civil servants working for the government of Ontario embarked upon an imaginative project some ten years ago to get at this problem of the rising consumption of water, which is the greatest threat to the southern part of Ontario today. They produced technology that would have reduced the consumption of water for domestic purposes by at least 50 per cent and, if they wanted to go the whole road, up to 90 per cent. When that project was nearing successful completion, suddenly the orders came down from Ottawa and that department was squelched and not allowed to go forward with the work it was
Department of Labour Act
doing. What I am talking about is no secret. It is the CanWell project.
CanWell was a co-operative venture between what was then Central Mortgage and Housing, research people from the National Research Council and the Ontario Research Foundation. When I asked the minister in charge in Ottawa some eight or nine years ago why he would not tell the people of Canada about the CanWell project, his answer in this House, as the record will show, was "You tell them, not me".
The minister was in effect telling me that he had been told by his staff please not to mention CanWell because it was a success. All the hard work and imagination of the scientists and civil servants who built that success and all of that technology should have been patented. Something that is needed all over the world, is recycling and purification of water, and done in such a way that it is cheaper than what they are doing.
The great cities of southwestern Ontario are now desperately short of water. The city of Winnipeg needs more water. All these cities would not be facing billion dollar projects if the knowledge produced by our civil servants and scientists of ten years ago had been made use of.
More recently we have the example of Telidon. Tremendous know-how from the Canadian side went into the production of this technology, but I gather we do not have any patents on it. If a labour group could throw its weight behind the inquiries that are allowed here, once they showed what the facts were, put political pressure on to the city MPs and made them back up their labour people like the farmers put pressure on the rural MPs, there would be some action taken.
This is not a partisan suggestion, as I think the minister recognizes. I am simply saying this has been a failure. I did not know the "shall" provision was in the old legislation. Had I known, I would have been after my colleague when I was a minister to get his body in action and to get moving because I needed support and help. I was the one who was trying to take the lead in co-ordinating the work to develop these industrial strategies with some success, but not enough. I suggest the minister has a great opportunity, if he lives up to the word "shall" and makes his department produce inquiries about real questions that exist.
I have a list a page long of other proposals. I will take another example that is purely labour. Even though it is under provincial jurisdiction, it is the type of thing we have to face up to in politics. A company in Saskatchewan that produced binder twine worked eight hours a day five days a week. The demand for binder twine was so great that they proposed developing the plant into a three-shift-a-day, seven-day operation and thereby produce four times as much binder twine. Why did it not happen? The union which was recognized as the bargaining unit, the retail clerks union, said that under their union you can only work five days a week one shift. They refused to work the three shifts and, of course, refused to allow in any other union to do so.

June 12, 1981
Department of Labour Act
This is a provincial matter, but look at the number of jobs lost to working men. When one group of working men take an attitude like that and stop progress, it is a perfect case for an inquiry by a federal organization. Make it known to the people of Saskatchewan that the labour people across Canada are backing the labour people of Saskatchewan in seeing that opportunities are given.
I do not want to bore the House or take the time of the House by going through all the things that could be done by an active group under this provision where they shall make inquiries, not inquiries to cover up but inquiries to let the people know there are opportunities for them if they put political pressure on their city MPs and get them off their seats and moving.
If the minister would take this legislation, which looks innocent enough and has been sitting around for a couple of years waiting to be passed, and really roll in his department, he would scare the devil out of all the other ministers. He could make a deal with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to join forces and scare the daylights out of those guys. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would not be able to do a thing with him. Once you do something worth while which has the support of all the labour people, the Prime Minister would not dare do a thing with you.
I gave the same advice to the Minister of Agriculture on interest rates. "Go ahead and do it, you have the power, they won't throw you out". The minister has these opportunities in his hands, backed up by legislation, and they should be used. It all depends on the will and the spirit of the minister who holds the portfolio whether anything is done.
I want to close by saying that the failure of governments in not having come up with a clear, direct industrial strategy for the next 30, 40, 50 years is a failure that we must all share responsibility for, but most of the responsibility falls on those sitting in the seats of office now.
I hope the minister will set up this group which he should have in his department, that he will expect them at the end of the year when he gives his report to Parliament to list all the questions that they have inquired into and their recommendations, and that he personally will make these things public to the labour unions across Canada so that the work force can be organized behind the minister and put pressure on other MPs to get things done to help us provide more jobs for the people of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset say how much I welcome many of the things that have just been said by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). There was one spot where he might have left out a couple of sentences, but to the extent that he was pleading for an industrial strategy, for progress and development in the creation of jobs and pushing this country ahead, it was a good speech. In fact, it was so good that I urge him to make it again when the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) is before us, when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) has the floor, as well as the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Roberts). These are the ministries concerned about that sort of thing.
1 would be very grateful if the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) had the credentials to go into that field, but for the most part his job is that of a referee. It is not his job to find jobs; that is the job of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is not his job to create jobs; that is the job of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and so on. His job is to referee labour relations.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain may have read a little too much into the capacity this minister has to launch inquiries. However, it was a good speech. Sometimes Friday afternoon is a good time to get a speech on record or at least to rehearse it. I urge him to make it again to ministers who have the key responsibility in terms of an industrial strategy and the economic development of the country.
With respect to the bill that is before us, I am still against it. I have been against it every time it has come up. At this stage of the game, since the Labour Gazette has not been published for two and a half years and this bill has gone through almost all stages, there is not much point in trying to block or defeat the bill this afternoon.
I was interested in the question the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain asked about the retroactivity of this bill. He wondered whether that meant some legitimizing was being done of money that had been spent in the meantime. The minister replied that that was not what it was doing, but it was to legitimize the way the department has broken the law since January 1, 1979, by not publishing the Labour Gazette. There is no doubt that the word "shall" was there in former Section 4 of the Department of Labour Act. It says "shall issue at least once in every month a publication to be known as the Labour Gazette. "
The minister says that because the department thought the bill was going to be passed, the department ceased publishing. What about some law enforcement officer over there checking to see what happens when the department breaks the law, whether the minister knows about it or not? 1 know at this stage the Labour Gazette had died and we are now legitimizing it to death and, as the minister said so honestly, the purpose of the language in the new Section 4 is to mollify those of us who do not like the Labour Gazette being abolished and to tell us that we are going to make it a legal requirement that there be a collection of information such as the Labour Gazette was publishing.
I recognize that times change and that there are different and sometimes better ways of dealing with things. The minister pointed out that there are now many publications which cover different aspects of labour relations and labour matters. I point out to him, as was suggested by one of my colleagues in the committee, that smaller trade unions, or locals of unions across the country particularly, have some difficulty in getting
June 12, 1981

all these various publications and it was an advantage to them to have the great body of labour information in this one publication. I say quite frankly that I am sorry it has been discontinued.
I have admitted already that at this stage of the game there is no point in blocking the bill, and even my 40 minutes, if 1 used it all, would not do that; but I am going to give the Minister of Labour another warning. 1 give it to him as a result of a very interesting experience I had this week. I spent two hours or more Wednesday evening, while most members of the House were up at the farm at the Speaker's party, in the company of Sir John A. Macdonald.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I was with Mackenzie King at Kingsmere!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, there is a difference. Sir John A. Macdonald came into this chamber, walked around and looked at things. He came over and talked to me, sat here and asked me what this thing was, the microphone into which we speak. He looked the place over and asked me what changes had been made. He told me things seemed quite different than they were when he was Prime Minister in the last century.


An hon. Member:: Did he point out the black spots, Stanley?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I pointed out the black spots to him and told him about the mistake I had made and how I asked to be forgiven because it was not the first time a member of Parliament had seen something that was not there.


An hon. Member:: Is this another example you are telling us about?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: He made some retort about shadow cabinets and that kind of thing. Maybe others have seen him because he was around most of the week. At one point we were coming down on the elevator from the sixth floor to the second floor. He had been up in my office for a while. As we came down, the elevator stopped at the third floor and the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Mrs. Killens), got on. I never saw a woman's face look so flabbergasted as hers. I said: "Don't be worried. I want to introduce you to my friend. Sir John A. Macdonald." I turned to him and I said: "Sir John, you don't hate Liberals today the way you used to?" "Oh, no, 1 love them now", he said. She got over it. It was a very interesting experience. In fact, he stood here in front of my desk, and when we were talking about committees and whether they were a good thing he said: "In my day I used to say that if the government had a big enough majority to put the right members on a committee you could debauch a whole committee of archangels". I looked at him and I said, "Well, Sir John, you have been dead since 1891 so you know a lot more about archangels that I do"!
Why do I tell about this experience I had visiting with Sir John A. Macdonald this week? I see members looking at me wondering if there should be a knock on the door and the men in the white suits should come and get me, so I will explain this in a moment. Before I give the explanation and spoil it all, I
Department of Labour Act
want to say to the Minister of Labour that he better watch out. If Sir John A. Macdonald, who died in 1891, can come back to these halls, Mackenzie King, who did not die until 1950, may well come back, and I do not think he would be so friendly. If he comes back and finds that this young fellow who is now the Minister of Labour has done away with his pride and joy, the Labour Gazette, he will have something to explain.
I may say that my reference to the visit of Sir John A. Macdonald was not of one who had had hallucinations. Rather, it is a fact that TV Ontario, through its educational television section, is doing a piece for students on Parliament and it devised this way of doing it, having an actor play the part of Sir John A. Macdonald and come here to have an interview with the Speaker, with the government House leader, some backbenchers and so on, and I was one of those who had the privilege of meeting with him. He certainly looked the part and it was enjoyable, but I say to my friend the Minister of Labour that when Mackenzie King comes back and sees what he has done to the Labour Gazette, he will not be able to report that experience with quite the same relish or delight.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, it is Friday afternoon and these are the things that go on. I say again this Friday afternoon that I regret very much that this valuable publication has been discontinued. I regret that the Department of Labour broke the law by discontinuing it in 1979 and is now getting authority for that two and a half years later. I hope the minister will take seriously the responsibilities he has accepted under the new wording and do his best to collect, produce and distribute information about the labour scene that will be helpful to those who are involved in the various employment areas of this country. If I had my will I would defeat this bill and bring back the Labour Gazette, just as Sir John A. Macdonald came back here this week; but sometimes there are facts one just has to accept.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House on a Friday afternoon and be able to follow two of our more eminent members of this House who have been with the Parliament of Canada for many years. The minister across the way and myself are relatively new to the House, but when he questions the propriety of the comments of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), I think I am compelled to follow on some of the themes outlined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, from his years of wisdom and experience, indicated clearly to the House that when one sees any piece of legislation which has a retroactive feature, then as a member of Parliament fulfilling his or her responsibility to constituents one must be suspicious that the law, indeed, has been broken.
I want to go back to the minutes of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration of June 26, 1980, just a couple of weeks short of one year ago. On that date the bill was reported to the House. It was ready for debate and

June 12, 1981
Department of Labour Act
passage, but it is interesting to read the debates of that day. It is perhaps unfortunate that the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), who is our spokesman on labour matters, was not able to be here to debate this bill on the day it came forward because certainly in the committee he was very active and, as we read the transcript, we can tell that not all of his concerns were satisfied.
One of the interesting parts of that transcript should be read into our record in this House. At the instigation of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) the deputy minister of labour said the following in the committee, in response to a question by the hon. member for Don Valley West:
-we were faced with the requirement to reduce our 1978-79 budget by $1.2 million and our 1979-80 budget by $2.4 million, and we came to the conclusion that the view of the public, because of that experience, was that perhaps we could dispense with the Labour Gazette since there were many other publications that occupied the field. The field had become very sophisticated. So we did do away with the Gazette.
Going back to 1978-79, a labour law was passed by the elected representatives of the people of Canada who sit in this House of Commons. That law says that the minister shall publish a labour gazette. That is what the law said back in 1978-79, and that is what the law says today. At this very moment the law says that the minister shall publish a labour gazette, yet in rather cavalier fashion, before a standing committee of this Parliament, the deputy minister said: "We were faced with a budgetary need to reduce expenditures; therefore, we broke the law."


Mr. Kilgour:: Shame.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The department stopped adhering to what the law said it must do. Perhaps it is not the most important law on the books in Canada, but 1 think we in this House must be very concerned when a deputy minister, acting on ministerial authority approved by the bureaucrats from the deputy minister on down, does not say, "We must go to Parliament and change the law", but simply, "For budgetary reasons we will break the law."


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: As long as it does not eat into my time, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to permit a question.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Is the member aware that the department ceased publication at the time the original bill was introduced into the House, not under the former government but under the government before that, and is the hon. member aware that the publication had not come out for about a year and a half before the time I became minister, that the former ministers, Lincoln Alexander and the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), had ceased publication only after a bill had been introduced in the House and that as a consequence of the passage of time, two governments went out of existence in the interim?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is seldom that I can express so much pleasure at a question. Yes, I am aware that the government introduced a piece of legislation and then, with impunity, began to break the law. No legislation has been passed by the members of this House, and that is a further example of the arrogance of a cabinet which, the minute it introduces a piece of legislation in this House, deems it to have been passed and acts on it.
In the thick book of bills presently before this House, one which is in my area of responsibility concerns the Adult Occupational Training Act, and it has a retroactive clause. The first piece of legislation I as a representative of our party was forced to deal with was the employer tax credit, and it had a retroactive clause. We considered it in June of 1980. It was retroactive to April 1 because the government had been making commitments-illegal commitments-since April 1. 1 can think of no reason to blame this minister for this particular situation because he is correct when he says he was not the minister, but the government has not changed, and what we see here is that the basic philosophy of this government has not changed one iota. When the cabinet chooses, certain things are deemed to be law. The government acts accordingly and seeks the approval of this House retroactively time after time. That is wrong.


David Kilgour: It is also a crime.


Gerald Augustine Regan: What about your government?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is wrong.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Your government did the same thing.


Mr. Evans:: We agree; your government was wrong.


David Kilgour: Breaking laws is considered a crime under the Criminal Records Act.


Gerald Augustine Regan: That is a criminal authority sitting beside you.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move on from that issue because, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, that is history. The law has been broken in this country for 29 months. A government which was concerned about that when this bill was reported back to this house on June 26, 1980, would have put it on the agenda before June 12, 1981. The government is acting with impunity, and I suggest that is the responsibility of the current Minister of Labour.


David Kilgour: Contempt of Parliament.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The minister has been acting illegally for one year in not publishing a labour gazette.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there are clear rules about abusing the microphones. The hon. member who has the floor should be the only one to use those microphones. The hon. member sitting next to the hon.
June 12, 1981

member who has the floor has been abusing the microphones all during this speech, and I would like to have that stopped.


David Michael Collenette: It is the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Kilgour).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 have to disappoint the parliamentary secretary. Comments from any part of the House, whether they happen to be near an open microphone or not near an open microphone, have been tolerated since confederation, I think.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the illegality involved concerns what has not been done, but what we are dealing with today is a new clause which would replace the old clause which required the government to publish a labour gazette. The idea which lies behind this-and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) referred to this-is that the minister shall collect information, the minister shall make inquiries and the minister shall disseminate. The year is 1981. I do not think anyone who is concerned about the current data base in Canada could disagree that there is a need for information, and in the year 1981 this nation is not well served by information relating to the labour market and the relationships between labour organizations and management.
Currently, we are not well served with respect to information. I serve on a special seven-man parliamentary task force which has been examining, at least in part, the issue of information. The task force has been doing this for over a year now, and we have heard over 500 different groups which have testified before us. I think it is appalling that no one can tell us how many carpenters there are in Canada today and no one can tell us how many jobs there are for carpenters or plumbers or machinists. Regardless of how much money we are currently spending to obtain information, no one can answer those very simple questions. I have in my hand a report from the Department of Labour entitled "Absenteeism in the Canadian Context". On page two it asserts that the biggest problem is the immediate short term absences. And it goes on to say:
Yet, these brief absences (often of one or two days) are not identified at all in the over-all summation of total days lost which is the usual economic statistic provided in national and organizational service.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labour and Statistics Canada publish inaccurate and misleading figures. That is really what this Department of Labour publication says. Yet in this legislation we have the wording:
With a view to the dissemination of accurate statistical and other information-
One of the fundamental statistics it is important to know is the one related to absenteeism, and yet a Department of Labour publication tells us in advance it is not accurate. Nevertheless, they still publish it. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether, if this House passes this piece of legislation, a future minister who publishes inaccurate data will, in fact, be in violation of the law. I suggest he might.
Department of Labour Act
There is a lack of reliable and extensive information in Canada on safety practices. There is no adequate data base that will tell us the total cost of labour-management agreements. All we get are base rates. We have no data about what employers are doing to train Canadians, how many are in training, etc. Two government departments, Statistics Canada and the Department of Labour, carry out studies on employment earnings and hours. However, their definitions and methodology vary. So we have two departments putting out different information on the same subject. What are we going to do with that if we pass a bill requiring the minister to disseminate accurate information? Does it mean the minister will not disseminate information because it is inaccurate, or does it mean Statistics Canada will not disseminate it because it is the one which comes out with the inaccurate information? Clearly, one of them must be inaccurate, therefore it is a waste of taxpayers' money, perhaps a dangerous waste because why should we collect inaccurate figures?
When I first looked at this bill I think a sort of sick grin came over my face because it said the Minister of Labour shall collect information and initiate inquiries. From time to time, as often as I can, I attend meetings of the Public Accounts Committee which presented a report to Parliament, I think, last July. One of the recommendations of members of all parties to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) was that all evaluation studies done by all departments of government be immediately referred to the standing committees of this House. That is perhaps a complex way of saying, Mr. Speaker, that we ask the President of the Treasury Board that inquiries paid for by taxpayers be made available to members of the relevant standing committee, to the parliamentarians responsible for protecting taxpayers from the abuse which can flow from a government too powerful and insensitive to the laws and realities of Canadians. The answer we received from the minister of the Crown, Mr. Speaker, in its simplest form, was no. A lot of words surrounded it, but it was no. It meant, in effect, "Taxpayers, we will take your money and carry out an inquiry into some aspects of a program, but will we give it to members of Parliament to look at so they can judge whether the money was well or badly spent".
The Minister says no, we will not give it to the members of Parliament.
Then I look at Bill S-4 and find that it says:
-and shall institute and conduct inquiries into important industrial questions upon which adequate information may not at present be available.
Well, I can applaud the commitment of a society to inquire into important industrial questions. That is in our long-term best interests. However, I cannot applaud a government that will take money from its citizens to pay for those inquiries and not give them the information when the inquiries are completed. Many of our recent question periods, Mr. Speaker, have been devoted to that basic theme as it relates to the uranium cartel where there is even a suspicion of illegality. The results of that inquiry, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, are not to be made available to the taxpayer or members of Parliament. And yet before us is a piece of

June 12, 1981
Department of Labour Act
legislation which empowers the Minister of Labour to spend taxpayers' money to inquire into anything that strikes his fancy, with no necessity to report the results thereof.
In principle, Mr. Speaker, that creates legislation which is open to abuse. The government opposite, with a history of that kind of abuse, with a President of the Treasury Board who refuses even a simple request of the Public Accounts Committee for information on the results of inquiries, asks us to expand the power of the Minister of Labour to make inquiries and spend taxpayers' dollars, with absolutely no requirement that the results of the inquiry be made available to the public generally and to members of this House.
It is interesting to see that no one on the other side is standing up to defend this legislation, other than the minister, but if I had to do that because of an order from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the whip, at least that part would bother me. It would concern me if I had to support a piece of legislation giving a particular individual at a particular moment in history the unchecked power to inquire into anything in the industrial sector which he or she felt was worthy of inquiry, to spend taxpayers' money on it and not have a concomitant responsibility to make the results of that inquiry known to Canadians. It is somewhat like the argument that ensued in committee when this bill was discussed. As I read it, the hon. member for Don Valley West looked at the main estimates and said that, according to the parliamentary secretary, dispensing with the Labour Gazette would result in a saving of $225,000 a year. The minister came along a little later and said that $400,000 was saved. The member from our party looked at the main estimates and said that, for information purposes, the budget is down $31,000. It is possible to say that you save $400,000, or $225,000, because you did not print a publication, but have you really saved that money if you take it and use it to print something else? I could not help but think of a housewife who would go into the supermarket and pass by the bins of oranges, apples and lettuce and say, "I won't buy a dozen oranges or a dozen apples or a head of lettuce today. Gee, I have saved $43 already." Then she goes on to the meat counter and doesn't buy a roast and doesn't buy this or that, and she says she has saved another $202. With that kind of logic it would be easy to walk out of the supermarket having saved $3,000 or $4,000 at each trip. The logic is that if I do not spend the money on these things at which I look, I have saved it. But my banker becomes a little disturbed because he does not see it; it is not in my account. This is the kind of logic involved in the saving related to the Labour Gazette.
What is overlooked is that the Labour Gazette evolved from a kind of dry, academic statistical document into a document which, for the most part, could be viewed as containing discussions. What this means is that the articles contained in the publication are written by a variety of people and present a variety of points of view. The articles are written by people from within the labour movement, management groups, universities and by people from within government who had their
thoughts on labour in Canada published and disseminated to an interested audience.
When the minister indicates that there are more efficient ways to publish information, then I think we should be cautious. We should have learned from the retroactive date. We should look at that with suspicion and ask the minister whether the money is being used to publish the same kind of information wherein labour has an equal access to the publication of their views as do management, university professors and bureaucrats. Or, as taxpayers, are we now faced with an alternative expenditure which is essentially under the control of one person, the Minister of Labour? Are we now receiving, and do we have the potential to receive, a series of publications which put forward a single perspective? Is that what we will receive when the Labour Gazette is no longer published?
People from the department say let us get rid of the Labour Gazette, let us go over here, gather some information and make some inquiries and then the minister shall determine what is to be disseminated and how. This may be somewhat of an unfair analogy, but it seems to me that that principle prevails in any regime which we would classify as a dictatorship. One of the first things Adolf Hitler did in Germany was to take over the control of the means of the dissemination of information. 1 am not suggesting that there is a parallel in personality or intent, but I am suggesting that what the minister brings forward is a bill which provides him with that kind of authority in this field. He is provided with the authority to decide what questions to ask, whether or not the answers are accurate and whether or not to disseminate the information which flows therefrom. We may have a minister of good will, a minister who is brilliant in his tasks and who is fair; but, in essence, he is putting into law a very odious principle, that is, the power to single-handedly determine what information is collected in the first place, who it is collected from, how it is analysed and whether or not it is accurate and should be published.
Is that a principle which makes members opposite feel comfortable? It is a principle which does not make members on this side feel particularly comfortable. It is analogous to what we experienced in terms of a series of energy ads. The government took some $6 million worth of the taxpayers' money to publish these ads. It controlled the content of the ads, the publications in which they were placed, and the final message was that everything is well in energy. Yet, here we are in June of 1981 and we are told that we must pay 66 cents a gallon more for gasoline. Yet we are told that all is well in energy in Canada today.


An hon. Member:: Stick to the topic.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am reminded that the House pays careful attention to relevance. Are my comments relevant, Mr. Speaker? Would Mr. Speaker feel comfortable if the bill before us were to allow the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) to decide in perpetuity how taxpayers' funds should be spent in the dissemination of information with the kind of track record that exists in the energy field? We may have a wonderful
June 12, 1981

Minister of Labour who deserves this power, but I suggest that it is clear to all members that we do not have a Minister of Communications who deserves it. Therefore, the members of this House should be very careful about giving that power in law to unspecific and unknown individuals who may hold power in the future. That is the crux of the matter. Does something exist in our past which leads us to be careful and wary? 1 suggest it does.
I would like to paint a scenario for the minister which he and his colleagues may or may not have considered. Imagine a taxpayer who wants to form or strengthen a labour union, or perhaps someone who wants to take the risk and start a new business-


An hon. Member:: He must be crazy!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: An hon. member says he would have to be crazy. In the present economic climate, the hon. member is right. But this is a country with rich potential, and given a government committed to the riches and to the development of a good life for Canadians, we could achieve this relatively quickly. One of the things I would like to have, if I were starting a business or if I were trying to strengthen a labour union, is information. Information would be necessary for me to decide where and how to carry out my plan. I wonder if the taxpayers of Canada would have more faith and trust that their funds were being well spent in the collection and dissemination of information on labour-management relations, which is what this bill is all about; I wonder if they would trust that information just a bit more, if there were some kind of tri-party group-labour, management and academics-who decided what the questions were to be, how the information was to be gathered and how it was to be disseminated. I wonder if Canadians might trust it a little more because of the long-term reputation, historically at least, of Statistics Canada; whether they might trust it a little more if that body, that part of the federal government were given the responsibility in this case. I wonder if Canadians might trust it a little more if there were some kind of intergovernmental body which included representation from provincial and federal governments, and they had to collectively decide what information to gather and how to disseminate it. Or would we even give it to an academic department of a university?
We say that information is important. We say that at least a portion of the taxes collected in this country should be spent to get it and to make it known. But has there been a single moment's thought or discussion in cabinet about what would be the best route in Canadian society to spend that money wisely and credibly? Can we believe that a partisan politician, part of the Liberal government today, has the experience, the wisdom and the objectivity to spend those dollars wisely, to get accurate information and to disseminate it accurately? Do we have to be suspicious in this House that, given that authority, the questions are likely to be loaded toward the answers which people want? In any event, when the government gets answers it does not want, it does not publish, but when it gets
Department of Labour Act
answers it wants, it does publish. When that happens once or twice, on what is the credibility of the data based?
It reminds me of an issue which has been raised in this House once or twice in the last week. We have been told that when one phones up a census office in Canada today, one is told, "If you do not want your friend or neighbour picking up your form, simply mail it to Ottawa. It will go to Ottawa where strangers will look at all that private information and you will not be embarrassed by your friend or neighbour knowing it." Then we find that post offices are handing those forms over to one's friend or neighbour. That is going on across Canada. It was going on yesterday, it is going on today. There is our supposedly trustworthy federal agency-


Mr. Blais:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Not only is the comment by the hon. gentleman out of order, but it is completely false and without foundation.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I think I was just called a liar, in somewhat more polite terms. I would bring to the minister's attention, if it has not been done already, the fact that this is happening in several rural communities in northern Alberta. An hon. member from the New Democratic Party brought that situation to the minister's attention earlier this week. It may be that the minister does not want it to happen; but I think the evidence is growing to show that it is happening. I am sure that by now all of us who serve in this House have had phone calls from people checking-


Jean-Jacques Blais: Order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -the veracity of what they have put down on what is supposedly a private and confidential form. I raise this simply because in a free and democratic society-


Jean-Jacques Blais: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been sitting in this House a long time. Your Honour has been in this House for as long as I have been. Hon. members usually act very responsibly. It is very seldom that I have witnessed such lack of responsibility in what is expressed by an hon. member of this House


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: That is not a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -as I have presently heard from the hon. gentleman. I still insist that the matter is out of order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the point raised is certainly a matter of debate, and the hon. gentleman may wish to enter the debate, but it is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 1 do not want to go back into each of the points of order. There is a difficulty. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) has tended to stray from the subject before us. No one in this chair has ever found the perfect definition of relevance so that it could be utilized on every occasion. The minister is, in some sense and to some degree, correct. The hon. member has strayed. I am not talking about the issue as to whether the point of debate is correct, or false; that is not a matter for the

June 12, 1981
Department of Labour Act
Chair to consider. I would suggest that the hon. member for Calgary West try to edge a little closer to the subject matter of the bill before us.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 will try to come right down the throat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Not mine!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Not Your Honour's. How about the minister's?
When standing up in this House, I sometimes feel that it is a great compliment for someone to attempt to insult oneself, because I think it is always revealing of the character of the person who is doing the delivering, and we then provide a piece of behavioural evidence. Canadians who sit in our galleries or watch their televisions can judge for themselves as to who shall or shall not be believed and under what circumstances.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I have been watching you for the past 25 minutes.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: 1 would like to come right to the central point, and perhaps it is my final point, because I think it is critical. A good part of my professional life has been spent as a researcher who required information given freely and voluntarily by people so that hopefully 1 could write reports or make suggestions for this government and others which would be helpful to them in decision-making. There is nothing more critical in securing accurate information than a feeling on the part of those who have that information that they can trust the people to whom they give it and that it will be used responsibly. At the first tiny demonstration that the recipient of that information is not using that information responsibly, they cease to provide accurate information. That is the inherent flaw in this bill, that when a single individual who serves partisan interests is given this kind of responsibility to collect and disseminate, ultimately, sooner or later, those who have the information will begin to give false information if required, and no information if not required, and the nation will not be well served.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in asking a few questions of the minister on Bill S-4, as it says that the government requires statistical and other information relating to the conditions of labour. I would like to discuss a condition with him which was brought to my attention in Winnipeg last Saturday when the president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace workers contacted me about a serious labour problem in that union. He also brought to my attention the fact that the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) has also brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan). I would just like to read the contents of a letter which the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta wrote to the Minister of Labour regarding the problems with the IAM union.
The letter to the minister reads:
I have now received from Mr. Marc Lapointe, QC, a copy of the "Reasons for Decision" arising from the Hearing of the foregoing application before the Canadian Labour Relations Board on July 9-11 and November 4 and 5, 1980.
Mr. Minister, I have never in my life seen a rendering of judgment from a government board which is so filled with veiled insults, childish vindictiveness and absolute socialistic piousness, as is reflected in the aforementioned document, of which I have attached a marked copy.
The document casts scurrilous invective at the integrity and good will of the applicants, who are valued employees of the taxpayers of Canada. In his attempt to suppress the individualistic instincts and human pride of these persons, the author has chosen to use language which might have been extracted from the Communist manifesto!
As a professional person myself, I find it regrettable that well-compensated members of a semi-judicial board should allow such an unprofessional document to go forward in their names. They have insulted the integrity of all Air Line Technicians. Such comments as "their attitude reflected a degree of selfishness which fails to appreciate the true basis of collective action to democratize the work place" and "rather then turn their energies to the benefit of all, they seek to enhance only their well-being through CALATA" bely a strongly Communist bias.
The suggestion that "they (CALATA) want to be viewed as referees or managers, while still retaining superstar status" is the sort of drivel one might expect from a ten-year-old child.
The belittling of CALATA's paramount concern for air travel safety is intolerable.
Mr. Minister, the Aircraft Technicians of CALATA have every right under the laws and proposed Constitution of this country to form their own collective bargaining unit. They are entitled to the right of free association. Many other collective bargaining units exist in this country with fewer than 243 members, including the Canadian Airline Dispatchers Association with only 56 members.
I would like to point out that this will also concern the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). They, too, are concerned with the air safety problems within Air Canada. The letter continues:
I hope you will read the attached statement "Reasons for Decision" and take note of my comments in the margins. It is a totally biased document, laden with value judgments and devoid of any factual evidence of justification for the decision rendered.
I demand that the author of this document be fired, and that the applicants be granted a new hearing. Such serious misdemeanor cannot be left unchallenged and accordingly, I intend to raise this matter in the House of Commons.
I have raised the matter in advance, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta will also raise it.
1 would like to hear from the Minister of Labour as to what action he will be taking in response to this letter. Perhaps he will volunteer some information as to what action he proposes with regard to the very serious labour problems with the IAM union.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If the House wishes to revert to some form of Question Period under rules I do not know, I must advise hon. members that we will need unanimous consent to do so. I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) indicate that he had several questions. This is not committee stage of the bill. Perhaps the hon. member could indicate to the Chair just what procedure he has in mind before I can encourage that type of question and answer.
June 12, 1981


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, earlier when we were discussing this bill, the minister was answering questions and making statements. Unless something has transpired in the last half an hour or so, because I had to leave the chamber for a short period, I assume the same procedure continues. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) made a few comments on the bill and the minister answered him on two or three occasions. 1 thought that same procedure was followed.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. By agreement of the House 1 answered one question which dealt with the subject of the bill. I would be happy to discuss this matter elsewhere with the hon. member, either inside or outside the House under appropriate circumstances. But what he has raised does not relate to the bill in any way. I do not believe it is within the rules of the House for me to deal with this question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 think that answers the issue in my mind, both in terms of what the practice was earlier this afternoon and in terms of the minister's reply. We do not have a question and answer period. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine is welcome to take the floor.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments. Now that I have read this letter into the record, 1 hope he will take the first opportunity to write to me telling me what action he and his department will be taking to deal with this very serious problem.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On the point of order which I raised initially which related to the census, I want to indicate to the hon. member from Calgary that I am pleased to announce that Statistics Canada has received 82 per cent of the questionnaires. This response far exceeds our wildest expectations.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point or order. You have just permitted a minister to make a statement. 1 believe that under those conditions when a minister stands and makes a statement we are entitled to a question and an answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That is a very interesting interpretation. The Chair has to hear enough of an hon. member's point of order, whether it be that of a minister or not, to determine whether there is a point of order. There was not a point of order, but I did recognize the hon. member for Calgary West just to see if he wanted to make some sort of comment. He has made his comment. I will now recognize the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention, and it might still be, to finish shortly before four o'clock so that this matter can be dealt with. However, 1 consider some of the interventions made by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) quite unnecessary. I am now reconsidering the view I held previously.
Department of Labour Act
It is a pleasure to speak on a matter that, in its importance and urgency, truly befits Friday afternoon's debate in the House of Commons. The objective of the bill before us, which has been stated several times, is to remove the statutory requirement to publish the Labour Gazette. A number of members have referred to the drafting of the revised Section 4 which we have before us. As far as I can see, this is exactly the same wording, word for word, as we had in the first part of the old Section 4. I do not see much to challenge in this wording. It has stood the test of 81 years of time. The only difference between this wording and wording which might be put into place in 1981 is that the legal drafting within the Government of Canada and the Department of Justice in this day and age tends to be somewhat more precise, but it also tends to be more difficult to understand. I think the 1900s style of legal draftsmanship is in many respects better than, for instance, that of the income tax amendments with which we dealt earlier this year.
As pointed out by previous speakers, the minister has been breaking the law for some time now. He has not published the Labour Gazette. This is something we should not take too lightly. Had it not been for the manner in which the motion that was before the House yesterday had been dealt with, I might be able to suggest certain sanctions that might be applied to the minister on account of his transgressions, but that is not to be the case. By and large I am inclined to buy the argument presented by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) today. I presume that the statements of reported facts are correct. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
I understand that the circulation of this journal is quite small and has been declining for some time. As well, it is very expensive to put out. We have heard estimates ranging from $400,000 a year down to $30,000 a year. Probably the absolute truth lies somewhere between those two figures. The information is available elsewhere today. There are methods by which information relating to labour and discussions on matters of labour can be dealt with. There is a wide variety of both academic and popular journals in which people can read about labour matters.
I can understand the objections put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and his rather sentimental attachment to the Labour Gazette. Most of the views of the NDP on labour matters come from that period of time, or slightly before. Most of it belongs to the latter part of the nineteenth century.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Come, come.


Dave Nickerson: That is quite true. In the old section 4 of the Department of Labour Act, it was specified that the Labour Gazette should deal with statistics and other information dealing with conditions of the labour market as opposed to the part of section 4 that we have here which refers to conditions of labour. I suggest there is a distinction there, but in all

June 12, 1981
Department of Labour Act
probability conditions of the labour market could be included in the definition "conditions of labour" which still exists.
It is important that some branch of government deal with conditions in the labour market. I understand much of this work is being undertaken by the Department of Employment and Immigration, the manpower part of which probably did not exist in the year 1900. It is important that we know the number of jobs available across Canada in the various parts of the country, what people are available to fill those jobs and where they are located. It is important to have an understanding of the willingness of people to travel from one part of the country to another, such as unemployed people in Nova Scotia travelling to Alberta to find work.
Elaving this information enables policy decisions to be made relating to the relocation of labour, the immigration policy and policies respecting unemployment insurance and various other social programs. It also gives us an idea of the need for training and the training opportunities that are needed so that Canadians who are presently unemployed can avail themselves of opportunities that exist. The Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) has just left the chamber. She must be well aware of the problems in the mining industry. The mine may be located in an area of high unemployment but the mine operators are unable to get skilled people to work in the mine.
Section 4 will still require the minister to "collect, digest and publish in suitable form statistical and other information relating to the conditions of labour". It is useful that this practice be continued. Obviously this should be done in conjunction with the provinces and territories which have the responsibility for labour standards; labour relations and standards in the case of the provinces and labour standards only in the case of the territories.
I urge the minister to look into the possibility of amendments to the Canada Labour Code so that eventually the territories can also take over responsibility relating to labour relations. I could go into that situation in some detail, but because I only have a couple of minutes left, I will not do this at this time. However, I can assure the minister it is a matter of considerable importance in both the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory. It is important that the requirement be there to instigate and conduct inquiries into important industrial questions. These can be published, not in the Labour Gazette but hopefully in other magazines and publications with wide circulation among those interested in labour affairs.
Finally, I would like to suggest three areas of study in these matters which it might be advantageous for the Department of Labour to look into. First, I would like to see comparative studies made in labour matters between Canada and various other countries. I have listed three: the United States of America where they have the free agent approach to life, Germany, which is renowned for its co-operative approach between labour, management and government, and Japan where they have a paternalistic approach to labour relations. It would be useful to know how the various labour regimes in these countries result in differences, loss of productivity, number of days lost through industrial disputes, and so on.
Second, I would like to see more study into working conditions and wages of public servants. The record of industrial disputes is not to be envied. In the senior levels of the public service many good people are being lost.
Third, I would like to see a study carried out into the concept people have of strikes. At one time a strike was a last resort, but today it is becoming more and more commonly accepted as a tactic in labour relations; it is no longer a last resort. It is something people do as a matter of course, just as they go to the negotiating table or to a conciliator. This is something to be looked into. That is all I will say at this time. I hope I have left enough time for the vote to be taken.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, it should be stated in the few minutes that remain that we have a statute to underline the point made by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) and the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) that this Parliament has passed a law called the Criminal Records Act. It states clearly that if you are convicted of breaking any federal statute, for the purposes of that act you are considered to have a criminal record. In the vernacular, that makes one a criminal.
It is obvious that it is not the fault of the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) that we are in the process of doing something which clearly contravenes an earlier act, nor is it the fault of his predecessor the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). However, it should be very clear in the record of this House that we are talking about something which, if there had been a trial and conviction, would constitute, in the vernacular, a breach of a federal statute, in other words, a crime.
That point has to be driven home again and again to those opposite. We have laws in this country. If they are federal statutes, the breaking of them constitutes a crime. It cannot be made too clear to those opposite that whether they are talking about uranium and the Combines Investigation Act or the legislation here which they have been breaching for the last year and half, what they are doing is breaking the law without having been convicted of it. That is a very serious matter for any government in a democratic or non-democratic country to be contemplating.
I would simply express complete agreement with the points made by the hon. member for Calgary West and the hon. member for Western Arctic. Is there an understanding that the vote will be taken at four o'clock?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my friend in the course of his remarks has indicated a question with respect to an understanding. There was an understanding that we would dispose of this bill at this stage at four o'clock. I would have no objection if you did not see the clock for a few moments.


John Leslie Evans: I agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
June 12, 1981


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: The ghost of Mackenzie King will walk tonight.


Gerald Augustine Regan: He may give me some advice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the House have a mind to consider Bill S-10, or shall I move on to private members' hour?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 would think it would be advisable to move on to private members' hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 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, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of implementing a Cash Assurance Program (CAP) which would provide stability of income in the agriculture and other food industries (fish), make pay-outs on an individual basis, provide cash in the year of low income, replace or complement certain other programs, minimize the requirements for capital borrowing from institutions, provide equity for contributors, reinforce the family farm and minimize the exodus from the agriculture and other food industries, and avoid erratic pricing of food to the consumers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, again I find myself in the position of reintroducing a proposal which I have presented to this House on previous occasions. Although time has passed and there have been a few changes in the situation, what really has occurred is that the problems have increased, or have been compounded, since my first proposal on January 26, 1976, during consideration of the Western Grains Stabilization Program. At that time the minister in charge was not too receptive to this idea. However, since then we have had a change of government and there was a change in Parliaments and in the attitude of the government.
When 1 proposed my motion on November 26, 1979, as it appears at page 1701 of Hansard, the Conservative government accepted it and allowed the motion to pass. I might mention that the previous introduction of this measure was on January 26, 1976, and it appears at page 10306. I mention those references in case anyone wants to refer to the comments I made on those occasions or the comments of others who participated in those debates.
Income Stabilization
When my motion was passed it was one of the few occasions since I have been in this House over the years that a private member's motion of substance has been accepted. That was somewhat of a rare occasion and I was elated because from that point I felt things were going to move. On November 26, 1979, when I introduced the motion, the Liberal hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier), made these comments:
This motion is almost a complete replica of the program which the previous minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan) was in the process of implementing prior to the May 22 election.
Suffice it to say that at that time there was an indication of complete support on the part of Liberal members as indicated by those remarks. The hon. member for Bellechasse at that time was a Creditiste member who also supported the proposal, as did the spokesman for the NDP, although he made some comments also about what he wanted in the proposal. Those comments were welcomed at the time. I said at the time I introduced my motion that I would welcome any additions or deletions in the hope that this plan might be put into effect.
As I saw it at the time, and still see it, the present stabilization measure is inadequate because pay-outs following a disaster, whether it be a drought or what have you, are made in the year following the disaster. We witnessed the drought situation last year which had such serious consequences for the cattle industry. At that time we saw the implementation of the herd maintenance program. To this date pay-outs have not been made under that program, and its is now almost a year since that disaster. Similarly, pay-outs under the present stabilization program cannot be made until the following year. What happens is that the year following such a disaster we could experience, as we are at the moment, increased sales to Russia to which a considerable amount of grain is to be sold. As a result, pay-outs are made at the wrong time. In these days of high interest rates and high energy costs people need cash.
Let us consider the current situation of freshwater fishermen. Statistics would indicate that many freshwater fishermen have simply walked away from this occupation. Some thirty years ago there were 250,000 freshwater fishermen. Today there are about half that number. These people have simply left that industry.
People are walking away from various industries, many of them going bankrupt, because there is no cash flow. These people cannot provide a living for themselves and their families. What people really want is stability for themselves and their families. They have responsibilities to their families and other commitments they have to keep. These people want to work but they are unable to find a living. There is a desperate need for cash flow. It is particularly so in times of disasters.
Perhaps I could relate the situation to the grain industry more easily because there are so many variables or ups and downs in that industry. Let me refer specifically to the quota system. Just two years ago I remember there being a quota in one area of 2.9 bushels per acre, with another quota of 7 bushels per acre in an area just a few miles away. That is a man-made situation. Now we have high interest rates with an

June 12, 1981
Income Stabilization
increasing number of bankruptcies in the agricultural industry. There were 224 agricultural bankruptcies last year. The Farm Credit Corporation made 229 loans to individuals in the agricultural industry in Atlantic Canada. In other words, such a situation could result in the bankruptcy of all the farmers in the Atlantic region. What about all those people who are near bankruptcy? They realize that something is happening and they had better duck out from under before the situation gets worse. Those people simply pull out of the industry.
If one looks at the statistics one sees that 1,000 farmers annually in the one province of Ontario are leaving agriculture. I know there has been considerable comment in the last little while about the very serious problems that exist. The main problem relates to a lack of cash flow.
We all know of the situation involving the dumping of cattle which suddenly depresses the price of cattle, putting people out of business. We experienced a drought situation when there was not enough feed and farmers went bankrupt. Farmers may have been in the industry for 50 years, spending their entire lives on the farm. Suddenly they found themselves in a situation where they could not afford to buy feed. There was no feed to be had, so they had to unload. When a producer unloads in a situation like that, the income tax people immediately come along and say, "We've got you this time". A producer's life savings are put into his operation, and he does not have enough for retirement. Producers-whether they be fishermen or involved in vegetable production or any form of farming or horticulture, fruit growing or whatever-all have problems, but they have always felt that their retirement incomes were entirely wrapped up in their operations. With the capital gains tax moving in on these people, suddenly they find themselves having to unload whatever products they may have and selling out. The government zeroes in on whatever income they may have. Suddenly they find themselves in the position where they cannot retire. This kind of situation should not be allowed to continue.
There is no need for young men to go out of business, even if the banks say they are not good risks. Over the years there will be risks. Anyone involved in agriculture realizes this. This is true in any other industry. If a person starts a law practice, he does not find people walking in the door the first day he puts up his shingle. Businesses have to be built up over the years. So it is with a farming operation. There will be lean years, but a farmer can survive if he toughs it out and if there is a willingness on the part of the government to assist through difficult periods.
There is a cash requirement when disaster strikes, but the cash should come not a year later or two years down the road. We are still haggling over the embargo. Producers were promised there would be a payment because of the embargo. There was a commitment. We still have not heard what is going to happen. Nothing is going to happen. Producers cannot operate just on promises. In this day and age there is a need for cash flow.
My proposal takes into account a plan which is very similar to the existing grain stabilization plan. Under that plan the producer contributes 2 per cent. The suggestion I have been making is that the producer put in 3 per cent and that the federal government double that by putting in 6 per cent. At present the government puts in 4 per cent of sales and the producers puts in 2 per cent. However, if necessary, I think every producer would be quite prepared to increase his contribution, as long as there is a fund available so that he can draw on it when necessary. There will be periods when there will be adequate incomes to tide producers over, but there will also be slack periods. At present there is a 2 per cent contribution to the stabilization program and an approximate 5 per cent contribution to crop insurance. That is a 7 per cent contribution being made at the moment. I am sure every producer would welcome, or at least consider, some other proposal which might in the end eliminate the requirement for programs like crop insurance, the cash advance program or even the stabilization program.
Under my proposal producers would not have to go hat in hand as they did under the herd maintenance program. During that period of cash requirement producers simply begged at the door of the government. I do not think anyone in this day and age should have to come begging to the government. When that happens it appears to taxpayers that they are helping the industry out. All of a sudden the CBC comes in with a nice program showing a big farm operation. It does not matter if the operation is over its head in debt; the place looks big and the equipment is new. It is all financed at 22 per cent, probably, but that is the kind of project the CBC will probably show the people of Canada, telling them they are helping people who have great assets. I do not think there should be that kind of requirement to beg.
Other programs have been put forward. For example, the Cattlemen's Association has been putting forward an equity plan. The association thinks producers can put money in in periods when there are larger sales, and so forth. Sadly, a time of drought is the time when cattlemen have to unload because they cannot supply enough feed. That is when their incomes are high. Yet they may still have their land, they may still have their operations, but they do not have the necessary funds to go back and start the following year with an adequate supply of feed. In a case like that, what we need to do is to allow cattlemen to plow their money back into a fund. That would build up the fund, and capital would be available to assist others in the industry if they want to go back the following year when feed is available or if they have retained their land. As long as they pay their taxes, they can still go back to the fund.
What I am suggesting is that during that one period they should be tax exempt, provided they plow that money back into the fund. It should be tax exempt if they go back into the industry the following year. In that way the plan will have adequate funds. It will help. In fact, the industry would be helping itself. There would be adequate funds. For example, the Farm Credit Corporation is crying desperately for $200
June 12, 1981

million. It is not available. The government is not putting it in. In this case the producer could put this money into the fund, and it could be made available to those who need it. Similarly, on retirement, instead of the government's zeroing in by way of capital gains tax, farmers should be allowed to put money into the fund. If that money is in the fund, it helps the industry and relieves the government of the necessity of raising funds by issuing bonds. Farmers would be putting money into the fund and then drawing it out during retirement, when they have cash requirements or if they need it in order to have the standard of living they wish to have and to which they are entitled. Many producers do not pay enough into the Canada Pension Plan in order to make it worth while, but under this program there would be sufficient funds for themselves, and the rest of the money could be put to work for the benefit of the industry.
I will refer to several examples of how I think the plan should work. I would average producers' incomes over the last five years, although because inflation is over 10 per cent, perhaps the program should operate at 100 per cent of the last five years. Perhaps it should be reduced to four years or three years. However, for the sake of argument at the moment, my proposal is the following. If, for example, a five-year average is $10,000, the producer contributes 3 per cent and the government contributes 6 per cent; that would be 9 per cent of $10,000. Therefore, $900 would be forgivable if a farmer did not have a crop at all during that particular year. The balance would be taken by way of a loan. In other words, this is not a subsidy, this is not charity. Part of it would be a loan which would be repayable during the course of that year if a farmer has income. If at the end of that year the loan is not repaid- interest-free, I might say, because we do have an interest-free plan under the cash advance program-then immediately the farmer is in default, and the current rate of interest applies. That way there would be no ducking under the fund. The producer becomes responsible.
If a producer's five-year average remains at $10,000 and his sales for the year are $9,800, the shortfall for that year would be $200. In that case the amount forgivable would only be $200. That would be the amount. Instead of $900, it would be $200. In other words, he is not always getting the maximum amount of 9 per cent.
The following is the third example. If the five-year average is $10,000 and the sales for the year are $5,000, the shortfall is $5,000. The forgivable amount is 9 per cent, or $900. The amount of the loan would be $4,100.
In different industries incomes are different, and perhaps different rates apply. In the case of a big operator the five-year average might be $50,000. The sales for the year are, say, $40,000. The shortfall is $10,000. Nine per cent of $50,000 would be $4,500. In this case the forgivable amount is $4,500. The amount of the loan would be $5,500. Because the plan does not have enough money in its infancy, I would suggest that you break up the fund into two portions, a portion from July 1 to December 31-in other words you would be entitled to only half a loan because there was not enough money in the
Income Stabilization
fund to start with. Then from January 1 to the end of June you can come in with the other half, if required, until such time as the fund builds up.
Now if you did not reach into the fund, you would have an equity there and after ten years, if you did not draw from the fund, you should be able to draw out in the eleventh year the amount of your contribution in the first year. If you did not draw any equity after that, you would have an equity built up in such a way that you would get an interest rate comparable to the bond rate during that period.
Let me point out some of the features of the plan. It provides stability of income to agriculture, the food industry, the fishing industry, and so on. The pay-out would be to individuals rather than to industry because in some areas you have failure, in others you have bountiful production, for example, if disease happens to strike a particular area in the cattle industry, or if there was hail in an apple producing area. Anyone involved in the horticultural field is aware of the kind of disasters that can befall them. So the payments should be made to individuals.
The plan would replace certain other programs, for example, cash advance, stabilization, crop insurance, marketing quotas, and so on. Marketing boards would still be able to operate. It would minimize the requirements for capital borrowing from financial institutions. Everybody knows the banks are very reluctant to make loans these days and nobody wants to go to the banks. These farmers who do not pay income tax, or the ones who have sold out, should be willing to accept a lower interest rate because of the fact they did not pay income tax on the money they plowed back into the fund. It would thereby allow young farmers a chance to borrow money at lower than the going rates. If, for example, a farmer did not have to pay capital gains tax and he plowed the money back into the fund, he should be willing to receive 10 or 12 per cent instead of 17 or 18 per cent because he is not paying income tax on that money. That would allow young farmers to take loans at interest rates of about 8 per cent or thereabouts. In that way we would get around the immediate problem. This would help to reinforce the family farm, avoid erratic pricing of food to the consumer because of the fact-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker);: Order, please. I have given the hon. member considerable extra time and I wonder if he might be able to wrap up his remarks.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I just state in closing that I think the plan should be voluntary, and still allow marketing boards to operate. I apologize for the time taken, Mr. Speaker, and I would welcome any changes to the suggestions I have made. I hope that the government sees fit to accept the idea.


Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Speaker, the motion introduced by our colleague opposite at first glance looks most commendable in

June 12, 1981
10572______________________________________
Income Stabilization its principles and objectives. However, at close range it seems that we would have to start at the very beginning with regard to income security and price stabilization in the agriculture, food and fish industries.
Yet an analysis of current conditions clearly shows that there is a host of government-administered programs the aims of which are precisely those contained in the motion now before us. This motion states, and 1 quote:
The government should consider the advisability of implementing a Cash Assurance Programme (CAP) which would provide stability of income in the agriculture and other food industries (fish), make pay-outs on an individual basis, provide cash in the year of low income, replace or complement certain other programs-
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this first part of the motion could be discussed at great length. I would first of all say that I have serious doubts about the need to replace or complement some of the programs-by one super-program having the same objectives as those being pursued by several existing ones which have been developed in response to specific needs. These specific needs can relate to a specific group of producers or a given region. Individually administered programs aimed at a specific target group have greater chances of success than one all-encompassing super-program which must be implemented in a variety of different ways and use various means to achieve an over-all objective. There is no doubt that several programs, within a flexible system, which co-ordinates the various activities, can be more efficient in their approach, have greater chances of achieving their objectives and in the end have the same results and, 1 hasten to add, at a much lesser cost.
As many of my colleagues are certainly aware, we have national programs administered by the federal government which not only have the same objectives as those mentioned in the motion of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchin-ski), but which also use the very same means as those described in the first lines of his motion, namely "pay-outs on an individual basis" to stabilize farm incomes.
Mr. Speaker, may 1 remind the hon. member that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has just announced stabilization payments of $8.96 for each hog marketed during the last marketing campaign under the 1980-81 Canadian hog prices stabilization program. These stabilization payments of $8.96 are individual pay-outs made directly to Canadian pork producers.
In view of the motion which we are now discussing, it may be useful to recall that the Agricultural Stabilization Act allows the government to meet many objectives pertaining to the stabilization of farm incomes and consumer prices. I would also like to remind the House that the latest report of the Economic Council which was given to us yesterday, states on page 51 in the chapter on marketing boards, and I quote:
Prior to the early 1970s, the average income position of most farmers in Canada was below that of persons working in industry or in service activities. Not surprisingly, there was substantial movement from the land. Since then, the situation has changed, and most families farming full-time today appear to be
enjoying a standard of living that compares favourably with that of nonfarm families. Undoubtedly, government support and opportunities made possible by organized marketing systems have helped raise incomes; but other factors, particularly the dramatic climb in food prices, as well as the abandonment or sale of marginal farms and the renewed interest in farming among young people, have played a significant role.
Mr. Speaker, the Agricultural Stabilization Act guarantees the producers of nine products designated in the act, an income equal to at least 90 per cent of the average prices during the five previous years, adjusted on the basis of variations in production costs. Support prices are computed annually under the act for the nine designated products, which are: beef, pork, sheep, milk, industrial cream, corn, soya, as well as oats and barley produced outside the designated zone of the Canadian Wheat Board. Other products can also be designated for price support at the discretion of the Minister of Agriculture if in his view market conditions so warrant.
The nine products for which support prices are set automatically each year include the main animal and vegetable commercial productions in Canada.

The Agricultural Stabilization Act, as its title implies, was passed to guarantee the producers an income despite market uncertainties. But it is also intended to protect family farms and thereby promote that type of farm operation. The payments made to the producers under federal stabilization programs are therefore limited to a specific volume of products for each farmer or operating group. In the case of pork, for instance, the maximum number of head for which payments are made was changed last year and set at 5,000 per family farm or a maximum of 15,000 head for each incorporated group of operators; at the most, three operators are eligible for subsidies, and they must prove that they share equally in the work, management and investments in the business.
The Agricultural Stabilization Act, was amended in 1975, and has been in force since 1958, Mr. Speaker. As of March 31, 1981, the federal government had paid out $3.6 billion including, of course, its payments to the Canadian Wheat Board and Canadian farm producers, under the act.
Naturally, in the last few years, there has been a proliferation of provincial acts providing for the stabilization of farm prices and income. This year, the fact that the provinces paid out about $35 million under that legislation indicates some degree of unrest. But negotiations undertaken a few years ago should soon result in interesting proposals that should enable us to organize the various stabilization programs across the country into a harmonious whole.
The establishment of national marketing agencies is another way for the federal government to intervene and offer assistance to stabilize prices and ensure fair income levels for producers. Pursuant to the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, the National Farm Products Marketing Agency monitors
June 12, 1981

the operations of the national egg, turkey and chicken marketing boards established under that act in 1972, 1975 and 1978, respectively. Those boards are responsible for co-ordinating supplies and stabilizing the prices of those three commodities through provincial agencies. Those programs provide for Canadian egg, turkey and chicken producers incomes which take into account their production, labour and investment costs. Since poultry feed represents in excess of 65 per cent of the production costs of those three commodities, the fluctuations in the egg, chicken and turkey production costs and consumer prices are closely linked with movements in the levels of feed prices.
The costs such as interest rates are also taken into consideration in the pricing formula for those products. Although there is no guarantee that prices will cover production costs, the prices of those commodities never did drop below the cash production costs since those boards were established. I would not want to launch an argument on the justification for or the appropriateness of those boards in a so-called free market economic system. The purpose of my remarks today relate to a motion urging the government to consider the advisability of stepping in to implement an agricultural cash assurance program. 1 believe indeed that the national marketing boards as established do offer within their limits the type of guaranteed income suggested in the motion introduced by our colleague from Mackenzie and, in that respect, they are quite timely.
There are also several other federal government programs which, each within its respective application to meet as best it can a given situation or specific and definite needs, are designed to contribute to the fulfilment of the over-all objective, namely to protect Canada's agricultural and food sector and to enhance its growth and effectiveness. Mr. Speaker, 1 am referring among others to crop insurance, farm credit, advanced payments for crops, all programs that have been put forward by this government to better help farmers get a fair margin of profit between their production costs and the market price of their products, financial assistance programs for produce cold storage facilities, feed grain freight assistance and the agreements with Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia under the feed grain freight assistance adjustment program. The government also acts in many other ways to protect farm income. These programs may not appear at first glance to have a direct impact on farm income, but they help producers become increasingly efficient, reduce their production costs and derive better revenues from their farms. These measures and programs benefit not only farmers, but clearly consumers and the over-all Canadian economy, and in that context it is our belief that agriculture is doing well. Indeed, 1 understand the Economic Council of Canada report says so in a number of places. Reference has been made earlier to the fact that farm abandonment declined after 1970. It is therefore my belief that the over-all Canadian farming industry is doing well, to the benefit of our Canadian economy.
Income Stabilization


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today since it deals with one of the two parts of what is required for survival in agriculture. The first thing any farmer must do to survive in agricultural production is to be able to produce. The second thing he must be guaranteed is the ability to sell his product at a price which will allow him to produce again next year. It is a very simple but complex formula. First of all, one must have production and some form of guaranteed production, to be viable for years, year in and year out. One must also have some form of income protection if one is to be able to continue producing from year to year.
Being a third generation Saskatchewan farmer, I feel that I may know about variability in both production and income, both from personal experience and from listening to my grandfather and my father recount some of their experiences. As well, I have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the economic history of the region.
I suppose, to oversimplify, what the country really requires is farms which are able to survive. That is the bottom line. Survival at the farm level is the absolute bottom line. Over the years, and after much pressure on the part of farmers and much agitation, we have put pressure on political institutions, and with much assistance from politicians we have finally come part way in overcoming some of the problems by bringing in crop insurance for most of the crops which we now produce, which provides minimal guarantees of production.
The other part of the equation, the price part, is only dealt with on a skip and miss basis. As the parliamentary secretary to the minister has just outlined, quite often the response is only when disaster strikes. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), who moved and is sponsoring the original motion, just pointed out that the funds coming from those kinds of programs often arrive far too late to be of any use to the farmer in his particular circumstance.
Therefore, I think we have to consider programs which are something like what the hon. member has put before the House today. We should go slightly further than to simply talk about a cash assurance program. We should talk directly about an income assurance program, because that is the other part of the equation which must be faced and dealt with directly. It should not be considered as something that should be passed over, as the hon. member from the government side said, simply because it does not deal directly with the particular problem. Based on the research I have done, I think that programs can be designed to deal directly with individual farm problems, just as we do under the crop insurance program. We deal directly with the crop loss on an individual farm basis. We could deal with price on an individual farm basis as well.
What I visualize is a program where producers of all of the major commodities would contribute to a central pool. I think, simply from past experience, that kind of pool could be kept actuarially sound. We know that while the market price in one

June 12, 1981
Income Stabilization
commodity may be at disaster levels, there are nearly always compensating higher prices at the other end of the commodity scale somewhere else. Therefore, I think the funds could be kept actuarially sound. It could be managed by contributions from producers and from government.
1 would suggest that the producer contribution should never exceed one third. The question as to who would pay the other two thirds is something which could probably be worked out between the federal and provincial jurisdictions, both of which have some jurisdiction in this particular case.
To this point in time, we have never dealt directly with farm incomes at the federal level. Some of the provinces have attempted to do so. I cite British Columbia as one example. The reason I think income programs have to be the focus of our attention is that the kind of stabilization proposals we have seen in this country, first of all, while they may cover a range of ten products, do not cover all the products and, second, they always operate on the basis of past history, and consider 90 per cent of the previous five years, or some such combination or formula. In a period of inflation, such as we are now experiencing, 90 per cent of prices which go back as much as five years provides very little protection for the producer, if, indeed, his commodity is protected at all. Of course, the companion problem is one of not receiving payment until a year or a year and a half after the bad experience on the part of the producer. Therefore, it does not supply the cash flow which is necessary for a farmer to maintain his fixed costs and his operating costs and to provide some minimal living standards for his family. It is, therefore, quite inadequate.
I would propose that the government give careful consideration to some sort of program similar to the one outlined by the hon. member for Mackenzie, with perhaps more emphasis on income than just the provision of cash on a willy-nilly basis. Obviously, such a program must be national in scope, perhaps similar to the unemployment insurance program, so that the benefits are equitable right across the country and the contributions are the same no matter what part of the country one is in or what commodity one is producing.
It would be based on a small percentage of one's production as an insurance premium, if so desired. Coverage of the program would be based on average production costs and current market prices so that one could establish what is, in fact, the income for that particular quarter in the year. It should be self-financing. It must be actuarially sound. As I said before, the producer should not be expected to provide more than one third of the funding. The other two thirds can be agreed to between the federal and provincial jurisdictions. There should be an eligibility ceiling such as that which is found in unemployment insurance. We do not want to be paying out $1 million to one producer, or anything like that. There should be a ceiling which is consistent with average incomes in Canada. The incomes should be available to farm families in order to allow them to have living standards which are at least equal to what one sees in the rest of the economy.
Clearly, all major farm commodities must be covered and must be contributing members of such a plan. It should also
take into consideration subsets of commodities which develop because of production changes and techniques. For instance, weaning pig producers have not always been part of any stabilization programs, and neither have cow-calf producers, and the end producer has always received the benefits of such production. We tend to ingore the primary producer in any programs which we have developed up to this point.
It is very important that pay-outs must be computed on at least a quarterly basis. Certainly we should not leave it for an annual computation and find ourselves making pay-outs as much as a year and a half or two years after the greatest loss has taken place. Most certainly and most definitely such pay-outs would have to be computed on an individual basis, which is not too radical; but in terms of stabilization and income programs, this is a radical departure. It is very similar to what we have done with crop insurance. I can remember when I was very young going to meetings where government officials explained how it was totally impossible to make pay-outs and give crop insurance on an individual basis. We have been doing it since 1961 or 1962. It has created no untoward problems. I think we can do the same thing with an incomes policy as we have been able to do on the production side. Both parts of the formula for successful farmers are important, and both must be addressed.
I would support the general thrust of the resolution and recommend the same to the government members.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the proposal put forward this afternoon by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) is a refinement of a proposal that he originally put forward in 1976 during the debate on the western Canadian stabilization of grain prices. 1 have to pay tribute to the hon. member for taking the time and for putting the effort into thinking this proposal through, just as he did in 1976. Now in 1981 he has brought it forward as a private member's motion, refined and improved from what it was in 1976. He has married it with a couple of other ideas which have come out in the various proposals in the House. I think he is coming up with a positive, practical proposal, without requiring a subsidy by the government. It presents no admis-tration difficulties. It is simple. It is individual. He has the concept of the income-averaging annuity in it which the tax people accept here. I think recognition should be given him for what he has done. He has made a major contribution in proposing this agricultural program.
I have some knowledge of the developments of the history of the agricultural programs over the last 35 years in Canada. This fits in and harmonizes with what we started to do at the end of the war. In the original thinking we thought about how we could get accelerated sales. This was the first principle. Then we thought about how we could work out systems and formulae to stabilize price, which the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) talked about. Then we thought about stabilization of income and we put in the crop insurance concept. We talked about a modern system of farm credit and we created the Farm Credit Corporation. Then we brought in the rehabilitation development theme which we
June 12, 1981

know as ARDA. All that was good, fundamentally sound legislation based on information that we got from hard experience in the 1930s and during the war years. We did get this into place pretty well in the period of the late 1950s. But the truth is that no legislation or programs produced from the minds of men are ever perfect. So we have had to improve this fundamental program as the years have rolled by.
I have mentioned western Canadian stabilization price legislation which was brought in by the Hon. Otto Lang. I did not agree with his complicated formulae, and I said so, but it was an attempt to refine and improve what we had done originally on the stabilization of income.
At that time there were four distinct proposals made by the Conservative party on how to get away from what we saw were difficulties that would arise in the western grain stabilization program brought in by the then minister in charge of the Wheat Board. The worries that we had in 1976 have proved, unfortunately, to be true. It has not worked because it does not meet the condition we have to contend with. The point raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie, was that the real problem was a group of crazy nitwits in the western world who have been running our monetary policy and who have deliberately, on the basis of a false theory, rammed up interest rates to absolutely critical levels which has made it impossible for these programs, built over the last 25 years, to work. I am speaking not only of the farm programs but of programs for the small businessman and the large businessman. The home owner has been affected and so has the whole country. We have heard about this ad infinitum over the last few weeks in the House. The positive proposals made by members of the opposition over the last few weeks on small business, the export industry, farming and home building have to be listened to by the government.
I was very pleased when I heard a week or so ago that the four proposals made by the party whip for the Conservative party were accepted in principle by the minister on the government side. Two members of the New Democratic Party supported those four proposals. These were strange words for me to hear in this House, having witnessed so much cantankerous fighting and confrontation over the last few years on subjects on which we should be working together. These subjects are usually agriculture and labour. One cannot claim there is such a thing as an ideological difference between us. It is just a question of the status quo versus a desired change. I think that the government should be congratulated. I spoke after the proposals were made. I suggested to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that he try an income-averaging annuity for farmers. This would allow farmers to put any spare money they had into a fund on any basis they could work out individually. There would be no administration. It would be
Income Stabilization
left between the farmer and the bank, the farmer and the credit union, the farmer and the Farm Credit Corporation or any other institution. It is not necessary to have government administrators for a simple individual system. In return for getting the protection of the tax law, which business and other people get, farmers will now be eligible and the money could be lent at reasonable rates of interest of 6 per cent or 8 per cent with no loss to the tax collector. There would be no loss to the institution lending the money, and certainly no loss to the guy borrowing the money if he is getting it at 6 per cent or 8 per cent.
The proposal made by the hon. member for Mackenzie fits right into this scheme. The day after I spoke in the House I challenged the Minister of Agriculture to make an announcement that he would accept the principle, that he would work on it and bring it to fruition. I told him that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would never dare to throw him out because all farmers would be behind him and so would all members of Parliament. The minister did accept that proposal and announced it on television. I have hopes that if enough support is given to him, he will push his proposal through cabinet. It will not cost the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) anything. In fact, it would be an asset.
This proposal, which the minister accepted ten days ago, is identical to the type of proposal that has been on the Order Paper for months as a private members' motion in the name of the hon. member for Mackenzie.
We should all realize that this is a sincere and honest effort, an effort over many years, trying to get an improvement which all parties want, namely the better handling not only of our agricultural industry but of others. We should realize that constructive proposals do come from members of Parliament and the word should be spread all across the country that we can force this cabinet to move.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Stanley Hudecki: Mr. Speaker, in the few seconds allotted me, I want to say how pleased I am to be invited to speak on this subject. It is unusual for an urban dweller to speak on farming matters. However, I speak with the intention of showing my appreciation and the appreciation of the urbanites of the farmers for the contributions they are making to Canada, for the dedication they have to their work, and their contributions to our welfare.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the hour provided for private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



END OF VOLUME IX