1981-07-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Some time on the morning of July 3 the Canadian motor vessel Arctic Explorer sank off the northern tip of Newfoundland with the loss of 13 lives. From the time the vessel was reported missing it took over five hours to get search aircraft in the area. This could have been a critical factor. The commanding officer of the search and rescue co-ordinating centre in Halifax said in an interview last December 26:
The Canadian armed forces rescue co-ordination centre here is so short of manpower and aircraft it could not respond to a mid-ocean tragedy.
He went on to say:
-we need fixed wing support out of Gander, Newfoundland.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House directs the Minister of National Defence to take immediate steps to have fixed wing aircraft stationed in Newfoundland in order to reduce the critical time factor in getting search operations under way off the coast of Newfoundland and in the northwest Atlantic.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas reports out of Vancouver indicate that the gaggle of NDP members visiting that city last weekend are in intellectual and
political disarray; and whereas 37 per cent of that flock of honourable socialist birds denounced their leader's unfortunate tendency to honk in unison with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That this House console the dissident members of the little red rump by granting their leader leave to spend the rest of his term in Cuba, El Salvador or wherever-without pay.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, like my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), my motion deals with the country's lack of funding, manpower and equipment for rescue co-ordination which is outlined again in the tragic circumstances of the loss of the Canadian survey ship Arctic Explorer off Newfoundland last Friday. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the government immediately allocate more resources for better search and rescue capability on both coasts, particularly at night, and cease the delay and procrastination in following the advice of men such as Captain Powick who warned many months ago, and I quote, "We need fixed wing support out of Gander, Newfoundland; we have requested it but perhaps someone will wait until we have a tragedy and then suggest it."
Now is the time to do something before we have another tragedy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARLIAMENT
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Miss Jewett), I move:
That this House notes that in addition to its being an undemocratic, nonresponsible and virtually useless although very expensive institution, the Senate has now been humiliated by a Prime Minister who treats it as a joke, a toy to be

July 6, 1981
5.0.	43
played with to suit his own purposes, and this House, as a humanitarian gesture, calls for the immediate abolition of the Senate, so that Their Honours in that other place can be put out of their misery.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that the NDP have just concluded a convention which they began by barring a segment of the press, then proceeded to advocate withdrawal from NATO, a ban on the mining and export of uranium, and a constitutional position repugnant to their only elected provincial government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That the Leader of the NDP explain to the House why the insult to western opinion was not made complete by a resolution condemning wheat farmers for not selling their grain at a loss.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas some large oil companies are increasing the rents to lessees of service stations at exorbitant figures, making it next to impossible for the lessees to make a reasonable standard of living, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson):
That this House urges the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to carry out an investigation to ascertain if these increases are in accordance with fair practices for small business and/or if this is a left-handed way of getting rid of lessees, and thereby tightening monopolistic control.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has had meetings with representatives of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture which have certainly identified the financial disaster faced by the red meat industry, particularly in Ontario; and whereas the federal Minister of Agriculture continues to befuddle the farmers, the public at large, financial experts, and even his own cabinet colleagues by his comments on agriculture and the economy; and since the Minister of Agriculture has not yet responded to the needs of the agricultural sector or been capable of influencing the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to address the specific problem in the red meat industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta);
That the Minister of Agriculture immediately establish a financing mechanism through farm credit or regular government banking institutions to redress high operating costs in agriculture.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the federal government has repeatedly confirmed its commitment to amateur sport, and in view of the fact that the department of fitness and amateur sport has abdicated its responsibility for sport in the north to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer):
That this House express its outrage that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would spent $35,000 on a film promoting the Northern Games while refusing to spend less than half that sum to insure that this year's Games will take place.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 6, 1981


POLITICAL PARTIES
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) attended the entire proceedings of the New Democratic Party convention in Vancouver, thereby learning how a political party should work and how, as was stated by Michael Valpy in his article this morning, the public issues of the day should be debated, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House congratulates the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta for his willingness to undertake this lesson in democratic politics, and regrets that no member of the Liberal party was willing to experience a similar uplifting experience.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POST OFFICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the disastrous effects on Canada's economy, particularly on the small business sector, and on those who rely on their fixed income pension cheques at the end of each month, caused by the strike of CUPW employees and the failure of the mails to move, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House require the government to bring in legislation now to get the mails moving again and to get the two sides back to the negotiating table.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. During the past weekend in very solemn conclave, 62 per cent of the NDP voted to remain in bed with their leader and the Liberals, while over one third opted for the Tory position on the Constitution. During the
Oral Questions
same weekend they voted to withdraw from NATO to keep from associating with the United States, but to remain in NORAD where the United States is the only partner. The weekend has somewhat muddified their various positions. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the NDP issue a supplementary manifesto clarifying its position. It could be added to the Regina Manifesto so that the Saskatchewan NDP would have something to show for their very, very long weekend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the rate of bankruptcies of all kinds continues to climb in Canada, whereas approximately 300 farming families, 10,000 small and large businesses and 30,000 individuals will succumb to bankruptcy by the end of 1981, and whereas the government's high interest rate policy is directly linked to his astonishing rate of business and personal failures, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer):
That this House condemn the Minister of Finance for his unnecessary punishment of Canadian businessmen, farmers and home owners, and call on him to table immediately an emergency budget which deals with the bankruptcy problem so that enterprising Canadians are not destined to defeat before they even begin to finance their businesses, farms and homes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It deals with the stand-off in the negotiations in the postal strike. On Friday the Prime Minister indicated the government's position on the strike when he said:
We have taken the clear position that there is no intention to settle this strike by legislation. It will, and should be settled by the bargaining process.

July 6. 1981
Oral Questions
In view of what appears to be the present state of the negotiations, or the lack of negotiations, and that the government House leader indicated that the House may well rise on July 10 for a recess until the Wednesday following Thanksgiving, does the Prime Minister think it is wise to adjourn the House before this particular dispute has been resolved and settled? Will he in fact allow the House to recess over the summer months before the strike is resolved?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that our House leader has never indicated any precise date. I think the date of July 10 was mentioned by the Conservative House leader. We will adjourn as soon as the business before the House is completed in an acceptable fashion. I repeat that part of that business is not to legislate a return of the CUPW.
* (1415)
It seems to me that the union leaders have put themselves in a difficult position for us to satisfy them. Mr. Parrot has made it clear that, if legislated back to work, he would disobey the order. He seems to be making it clear by his actions that he does not want to return to the bargaining table. Therefore, I am at a loss to know what would advance negotiations or a settlement in this area. Certainly we do not want to legislate a union back for many reasons, but at this particular time when the union leader himself says that he would rather go to jail than obey the law I do not know why the hon. member would suggest legislation right now, under those circumstances.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the proposition which the Prime Minister puts forward is a rather novel one. He says that he is afraid to legislate if there is some concern that the full force of law would not be brought to bear against those who do not obey it.


EFFECT OF STRIKE ON SMALL BUSINESS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the President of the Treasury Board. On June 30 the minister said:
-that members opposite have no monopoly on concern for the people of Canada and the difficulties they will have in enduring this strike.
I would like to ask the minister about his concern for the businessman, particularly the small businessmen of this country. As we all know, many businesses are staggering under the burden of the government's unprecedented interest rates. Bankruptcies are soaring. It is estimated by the Canadian Organization of Small Business that there will be between
1,000	and 1,500 bankruptcies per week as a result of the postal strike. Can the minister explain to the small business community how his concern will help them to remain solvent? I know that the minister's paycheck is delivered by messenger, but what about the rest of the people of Canada? What does he propose to do to help them?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I remain in contact with the small
business community. I had a discussion with Mr. Bulloch this morning in order to get a feeling of what the circumstances are. He is monitoring the problems and the costs. I hope the banks are responsive to representations being made that where it is clear that accounts are mounting because of the postal strike, per se, consideration will be given to businessmen in those circumstances.


ROLE OF POSTMASTER GENERAL
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is for the hidden cabinet minister in this whole business, that is, the Postmaster General, who I am sure has a passing interest in this matter. I am sure after what he did last year he has been kept out of the negotiations this year.
The Canada Post Corporation is scheduled to be brought into effect on September 1 of this year. I know that the Postmaster General will not want this new corporation to start up under the pall of having its employees on strike. Is it the minister's intention to proceed with the order in council which would bring the Crown corporation into effect on September 1 and to transfer the negotiations in this matter to the Crown corporation and away from the Treasury Board, or will he just sit by and let matters drift, allowing this strike to carry on for the duration of the summer and until Parliament reconvenes?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, the date of September 1 is an objective we have in mind. Of course several events may occur between now and September 1 which will make it difficult to proclaim the act at that time. I simply want to remind the hon. member that nowhere is there a firm and written guarantee that the Act to establish the Canada Post Corporation will be proclaimed on September 1. It is a date we have set as an objective and the Post Office officials who are busy drafting the regulations and setting in motion the provisional mechanisms to change the department into a Crown Corporation will be ready around September 1. It is, unfortunately, too early for me to be in a position to say whether or not the proclamation will take place on that date.


DELIVERY OF SOCIAL SECURITY CHEQUES
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, pensions, family allowances, veterans' allowances and unemployment insurance cheques are very important elements in many families for meeting their expenses these days. I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services in view of a response that he gave in the House on Friday. He said that at that time talks were under way with the letter carriers' union to see whether they would assist in the distribution of this type of cheque during the course of the postal strike. At that time he said that he was not sure what the status would be. I would
July 6, 1981

ask the minister now if he could provide information to the House as to what the position will be regarding the delivery of these cheques in the future.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, if I understood the hon. gentleman's question properly, I can tell him that the negotiations, or at least the discussions with the LCUC have not as yet been completed. They are being conducted by officials within the administration of the Post Office. I might say to the hon. gentleman that while the indications are positive that the LCUC would carry through and would deliver the cheques, I insisted that that undertaking be given to me in writing. As I indicated on Friday, in the event that we are unable to obtain such an undertaking in writing, we will have a series of distribution centres throughout the country which will be responsible for the distribution of the socioeconomic cheques that the hon. gentleman has identified.
[ Translation]
And those cheques, Madam Speaker, include, as I indicated on Friday, pension cheques, family allowances, old age security, the supplements and all pensions distributed throughout Canada, including the Canada Pension Plan benefits.


DELIVERY OF JUNE CHEQUES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. On Friday the minister did state that all the cheques which were due in the month of June had been delivered. I would point out that the information he had received is wrong. There are many of us on this side of the House who have received phone calls from individuals who expected those cheques. They have not been received.
I would first like to ask the minister what action he is proposing to ensure that those cheques are delivered. Second, in the establishment of the emergency distribution centres, would the minister take account of the problems which many individuals have in reaching these centres? As an example it is very awkward to get unemployment insurance cheques today in rural communities and in centres like Metropolitan Toronto. In Toronto the distribution centre is at Broadview and Queen. It is not convenient at all to the normal rapid transit services. In addition to that, the people who are expecting cheques do not know whether their cheques are in before they arrive down there, so they may take a long trip and find out that there are no cheques available. Would the minister ensure that there are more convenient means available to citizens to pick up these cheques when he is establishing this emergency distribution process?


Hon.   J.-@: I might indicate, first of all, with reference to the first part of the hon. gentleman's question, that I would appreciate it if all members of this House would advise me in the event that there are any cheques due in June which have not been received, and I will
Oral Questions
ensure that those cheques are forwarded as soon as practicable. If there are a number of them, that number has not been communicated to me.
I see that the hon. member for Yukon is identifying himself as one recipient who has not received his cheque.


Mr. Nielsen:: No, no!


Mr. Blais:: I would be pleased to receive further particulars relating to that particular failing.
In terms of the distribution centres, I might advise the hon. gentleman that we are attempting, in all instances, to have storefront operations for areas which are readily accessible to the total population. I would appreciate any co-operation that all hon. members of the House might be able to provide me in order to ensure that those individuals who are entitled to cheques are made aware of the circumstances of the distribution. As I also indicated on Friday, we have an advertising program which is being put in place in order to advise people within areas of where the distribution centres will be located and how the payments are to be effected.


GOVERNMENT STEPS TO RE-ESTABLISH NEGOTIATING PROCESS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I address a further question on the postal situation to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's clear statement on Friday, and again today, that the government does not intend to bring this dispute to a conclusion by introducing back to work legislation, a position with which he knows we agree, but in view of the seriousness of the situation, and the suffering that is being endured, what positive steps is the government prepared to take to try to re-establish the process of negotiating? To what extent is the government prepared to move in the hope that the other side might also move to a certain extent, so that the two parties can be got back to the bargaining table? Since the Prime Minister says that is the way it must be done, will the government do its part in getting back to the bargaining process?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned, which asks what the government is doing to try to have negotiations resume, I have a letter from the President of the Treasury Board, of which I am sure he would send a copy to the hon. member, indicating the times when we have attempted to get CUPW back to the negotiating table from which it withdrew the Friday before the strike. There were direct and indirect attempts to get them to come to the bargaining table, including, I believe, one at ten o'clock on Monday evening. The union leaders have consistently refused to come to the table.
In so far as the hon. member's suggestion is concerned, that I might indicate what we are prepared to do in order to incite them back, I would think that the hon. member is too experienced in matters of labour relations to think it would be appropriate for me to indicate any particular area where

July 6, 1981
Oral Questions
bargaining can and should take place. The process of bargaining should take place between union leaders and government representatives, not between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, eminent as he is, and myself, as uneminent as I am.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ITEMS IN JASMIN REPORT
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, first may I make it clear that I used the word "encourage", not the word "incite". May I say to the Prime Minister that we are prepared to admit that there have been faults on both sides in the past. The question is what can now be done? In particular, if the government is not prepared to agree in advance to all of the conditions set out in the Jasmin report, is the government prepared to indicate which of those conditions it will accept, which of those conditions it will discuss, in the hope that this might encourage the other side at least to resume the negotiating process?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am absolutely certain that once the parties sit down at the bargaining table the President of the Treasury Board, through his officials and negotiators, will indicate some areas where we are prepared to reject and perhaps some we are prepared to accept. Once again that is a matter for the negotiating process, not for an informal exchange of views between the hon. member and myself.
In so far as his correction about encouragement rather than incitement is concerned, I should have thought it would be encouragement enough for the workers to know that they would be able to resume the service that the people of Canada want and desire, they would be able to see their fellow workers return to work, they would be able to see small businessmen taken out of the difficult straits that have been described in this House and, perhaps, even most important, that they would be looking forward to the prospect of some $25,000 per year payment for the average letter sorter. That does not seem like a bad enticement, Madam Speaker, to come to the table.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER SEEK ADVICE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, again I say that we appreciate the fact that there have been faults on both sides in the past. We are not now discussing the past; we are now discussing the impasse. I have been trying to get from the Prime Minister some willingness to do something that would get the two sides together. If he does not have any ideas along this line, may I remind him that the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the hon. member for Lincoln on previous occasions, in the midst of all night sessions, were able to settle some of these disputes. Would he seek some advice from them in the hope that we might get action soon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I take that, Madam Speaker, apart from the fact that it rests with some members on this side, as a suggestion. I will consider the suggestion.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. WILHELM HAFERKAMP, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE ECC
Madam Speaker:: It is my pleasure to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Wilhelm Haferkamp, the vice-president of the European Communities Commission.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport who is responsible for the Canadian Coast Guard. The minister will know that some time on the morning of July 3 the Canadian vessel Arctic Explorer sank shortly after leaving St. Anthony, five miles off the coast, with the tragic loss of 13 lives, including most of the members of the crew. Is the minister in a position to tell the House the circumstances surrounding this latest marine tragedy off the Atlantic coast?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am not. The causes of the tragedy are unknown.
May I pause for a moment and on behalf of all members of the House, express our sympathy to the families of the crewmen who died in this accident.
The hon. member was mentioning a moment ago that he thought the reaction process of search and rescue was not sufficiently rapid. I might underline the fact that there was no message from the ship itself as to its situation. It was only a day after that the search and rescue authorities were advised that the ship was late in reporting. It took only 15 minutes to get the search and rescue on its way. This included the sending of three coast guard ships, two Buffalo aircraft, one long-range Aurora, two helicopters, etc.


Erik Nielsen: When did they get there?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not think that one should indicate now that the rescue reaction was slow in coming.
July 6, 1981


POSITIONING OF SEARCH AND RESCUE AIRCRAFT
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my question was not intended to be critical of the coast guard but the search and rescue capability as it exists at the present time. But the minister will be aware that reaction time could be a critical factor, and only an inquiry will determine that. No doubt the minister is aware also that on December 26 of last year the Commanding Officer of the Canadian Armed Forces Rescue Co-Ordination Centre in Halifax said:
The Canadian Armed Forces Rescue Co-Ordination Centre here is so short of manpower and aircraft it could not respond to a mid-ocean tragedy.
He referred to the task as trying to cover an amputation with a band-aid. He went on to emphasize the desperate need for the stationing of fixed wing aircraft in Newfoundland.
There was a reaction time in this case. It took almost five hours to get the fixed wing aircraft into the search area. During that period men were in the water. This reaction time could have been cut to less than half that taken if these aircraft had been operating out of Newfoundland. The minister knows that helicopters can only effect a rescue. It takes fixed wing aircraft to effect a search.
Why did the government not respond to this recommendation of the commanding officer of the Rescue Co-Ordination Centre and I might also add the recommendation of his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue? The Minister of National Revenue expressed his concern last August over the lack of a search and rescue capability, referring to the fact that marine disaster calls had risen by 62 per cent in the area. That is a serious situation. I do not want to make capital out of it, but how many more people have to die before these people are listened to?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I could give my hon. friend a report on the addition to expenditures on search and rescue in the last year or two. It is considerable. At the earliest opportunity I will provide these figures. It is almost inevitable that we do not have sufficient equipment because of the type of coast Canada has. It would take huge sums of money to provide all the equipment that is needed at all times for all kinds of accidents in all places. There is a limitation, obviously, as to what can be spent. Be that as it may, a preliminary investigation has already been ordered by the Minister of Transport. Two investigators are already at the site and hopefully we will get to know more about the real causes of the tragedy.


POSSIBLE DEPLOYMENT OF FIXED WING AIRCRAFT IN NEWFOUNDLAND
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, why are some fixed wing aircraft not deployed from bases in the maritimes to Newfoundland? If that were done up to
1,000	miles would be added to their operating capability and it would cut response time to literally next to nothing. For example, if fixed wing aircraft had been in Gander they could have been in the search area in less than one hour.


Erik Nielsen: It would take only two or three aircraft.
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this is a responsibility which is shared by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence. I try to provide as many ships as money will allow. He tries to provide the air equipment. I think I will leave it to the Minister of National Defence to answer tomorrow on the specific point raised by the hon. member.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the minister is aware, Volkswagen desires to construct a parts plant in Ontario, either in Cambridge or in Barrie, which will employ some 500 people. Last Thursday Ontario's minister of industry and tourism stated:
Volkswagen needs to have a decision in the next two weeks. The federal government, I understand, is holding up a decision while they try to encourage Volkswagen to look at other locations which Volkswagen rejected a long time ago. My message is, let's not hold up a decision on duty remission in order to persuade Volkswagen to go to an uneconomic site and risk losing the entire 500-job investment in this province.
Will the minister confirm to this House that he is holding up the decision with respect to this project, and will he acknowledge that he is doing it for the most crass political purpose, that of wanting it either in Windsor or in Quebec?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, Volkswagen is seeking from the federal government a very substantial duty remission program which would involve a contribution of millions of dollars from taxpayers from all over Ontario, and in fact from all over Canada. I believe the federal government has an obligation to these taxpayers to ensure that all suitable sites are looked at, including those that are designated under programs such as Regional Economic Expansion and industry and labour adjustments, where there are areas of slow growth or high unemployment. I certainly do not think that the company should be pushed to go into any uneconomic areas. But in the circumstances, for cabinet to agree with this proposal, it will have to be satisfied that all suitable sites have been looked at and that the best interests of the entire Canadian population are being served in this transaction.


DECISION ON TARIFF REMISSION
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, as the minister knows, if a decision is not made in the next two weeks we will find that Volkswagen will be going to the United States. Can the minister tell us when he will make a decision with respect to remission of tariff.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the decision in question has to be made by cabinet as a whole. It is a matter of particular

July 6, 1981
Oral Questions
interest not only to myself but to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue. It is our intention to move expeditiously on the matter, but cabinet as a whole will have to be satisfied as to the benefits in relation to the costs of this project for the Canadian people as a whole.


An hon. Member:: When?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1 am surprised that the hon. gentleman is not more sensitive to these concerns in view of the potential cost to taxpayers not only all over Ontario but all over Canada.

[ Translation]


POST OFFICE
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Post Office.
With a view to highlighting very specially one of the historic events of this country, particularly of the Petite Nation region and more precisely of Montebello, can the minister tell the House whether his department has any plans to issue a stamp to commemorate the meeting of the seven heads of state which will take place in Montebello on the 19, 20 and 21 of this month?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting suggestion which I will be pleased to convey to the committee members who advise the Post Office Department on the selection of Canadian stamps.


INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment my question is directed to the Acting Minister of the Environment. Was the Department of the Environment consulted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans before the government decided to pull Canada out of the International Whaling Commission? Does the Department of the Environment support the position of the government to pull Canada out of the International Whaling Commission? If so, what possible environmental grounds are there for such a decision?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Of course the Minister of the Environment was consulted on this matter. We support the decision that was made.


REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Did the government pull out of the International Whaling Commission because it feared that Canada's support for a ban on commercial whaling would alienate the country's major trading partners engaged in commercial whaling, in particular the U.S.S.R. and Japan? Did the government fear it was going to alienate the U.S.S.R. and Japan? Was that the cowardly reason for its stupid decision on this important matter?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That was not the reason, Madam Speaker.


EMPLOYMENT
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, a non-hero to millions of Canadian women, particularly those women associated with the Outreach program. Hon. members will have heard of that. On Monday last the proxy for the minister in the House during the adjournment debate said in connection with the transferring of funds from other programs to Outreach that a decision from Treasury Board was expected shortly. Can the minister tell us if this has come and what it is?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: As the hon. member knows, Madam Speaker, we increased the budget for Outreach this year. We have also substantially increased the number of projects that are allocated to women's employment services this year. Contrary to the hon. member's suggestion that nothing has been done, a number of very important steps have been taken. We are reviewing a way by which we can broaden and amplify the Outreach program to reach an even broader range of people in the community. We are taking a number of measures both in representing our interests to the Treasury Board and in other ways to allocate funds to provide additional support for this very important program.
July 6, 1981


TIMING OF DECISION ON TRANSFER OF FUNDS
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister did not hear me. I asked whether he would follow up on the adjournment debate in which his proxy, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, said that a decision from Treasury Board on the matter of transferring funds to Outreach would be made shortly. Has that decision been made? If not, when is it expected to be made since, as he knows, the deadline is September and these people are waiting to know what is going to happen to their Outreach programs?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is asking a question related to increased funding. I stated that we have an application before Treasury Board. In addition, we are looking at other ways by which we can add resources to that very important program. When the decisions are taken we will announce them in the House. The hon. member will be one of the first to know, and I am sure she will be very glad to carry the news back to all those people who seem to be pressing her for an answer.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. A recent report from the United States indicates that in order to get approval for production of the F-18 fighter aircraft, standards had to be met. They were. They were lowered. The most notable changes were the reductions in acceleration and range. Steps are also being taken to economize on the aircraft with cutbacks in cost of production of the aircraft of some $500,000 to $1 million per aircraft. Do we have an updated arrival schedule for the F-18s for Canada? Will they be the economized version? If so, will the saving be passed on to Canada?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I am pleased with the hon. member's question and his interest in the CF-18 program. I might advise him that, at the time of the signing of the contract, a number of specifications had been identified relating to the performance of that aircraft. We are satisfied that the specifications so identified will be met and that the aircraft we receive will be the aircraft for which we have contracted. There is no change in the delivery schedule. We expect the first aircraft to be delivered by October, 1982. All indications to date are that that schedule will be satisfied.


T.A. Bud Bradley: I am afraid the minister has more faith than I
have.
Oral Questions REQUEST FOR REVIEW


T.A. Bud Bradley: The minister will be aware that it is the fighter version of the F-18 A that has been approved for production. The attack version, the aircraft that Canada is purchasing, has not been approved. The radar for it is not even developed yet. A review, not approval for production of this aircraft, is not due until the fall of 1982, the same date we are to receive finished aircraft in Canada. Obviously we will not be receiving them on that date. With reduced standards for acceleration and range, and the possibility of a problem in radar development, three major factors required for surveillance and defence in the north of Canada, does the minister not think we should sit down and take a long second look at this aircraft?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, it is evident from the hon. member's question that he is in need of better information. I would be pleased to have him completely briefed on the CF-18 program as the hon. member for Victoria was briefed. We expect no reduction in the standards. There is no delay in the delivery. We feel that the contract is a good contract and that the aircraft will meet all specifications. I might point out that one of the strong points of the aircraft is the superiority of the radar which is at the leading edge of technology. We are satisfied that the radar will be exactly that which is our requirement, in fact will supersede the radar presently installed in all fighter aircraft and will be at the leading edge for some time to come.


DOMINION CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS ACT
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It arises out of the transformation of a former member of this House to a million dollar man in the other place. Last Friday, in answering questions dealing with the controverted elections act, the Prime Minister said he had taken the step he had to "save the hon. members' lawyers money". Will the Prime Minister indicate why he informed the House that he was saving money with respect to the petition under the controverted elections act in view of section 88 of the act which reads:
-the trial of an election petition under this Act shall be proceeded with, notwithstanding the acceptance by the respondent of an office of profit under the Crown, or the resignation of his seat-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there are two facts I would like to put to the hon. member. First, the government is not a party to these litigations. The litigations are between an individual and the chief electoral officer and his representative. Second, there is a general principle of law to the effect that, when an object of a litigation has been met, it is frequently the practice to discontinue the litigation. I was merely suggesting in this House that since the object of the litigation was to cause the election to be void and to create a byelection situation, the litigants should

July 6, 1981
Oral Questions
be thankful that I anticipated their most cherished desire and caused a byelection to be held. It is on that basis that I said that as far as the objective of the litigation was concerned, mainly to cause a byelection, it was no longer necessary. However, if the parties want to continue to litigate on the basis of the section that the hon. member quotes, obviously we are not in a position to prevent them from doing so. It is for the parties to make up their minds.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I am only informing the Prime Minister as to what is the law of the land. It says, "The action shall be proceeded with."


EFFECT ON WESTMINSTER CONSTITUTIONAL DELIBERATIONS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary question deals with another matter touching on this controverted elections petition in the riding of Spadina. Is the Prime Minister aware that those who brought the action fully informed Prime Minister Thatcher and her cabinet in Westminster that they were contesting not only Spadina riding but they felt that the implication was that the entire Parliament was under a cloud? If the Prime Minister is aware of this, would he confirm to the House that this matter has been raised in discussions between his officials and officials at Westminster concerning the early passage of the constitutional resolution, should it ever get to that side of the Atlantic?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understand the question correctly, but if I do it seems to me the kind of question the hon. member usually asks which is founded on nothing at all, no nothing at all, no reality and no facts, but just for the purpose of starting malicious rumour.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. When will the minister remove the uncertainty which exists concerning the future of the Nordair Company and especially that of its employees?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I mentioned earlier that I had become engaged to Regionair. This was the word used by the press. In fact, we are trying to arrange a marriage of convenience and they usually take somewhat longer than love matches.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, this has to be the longest courtship in Canadian history.


POSSIBLE OPTIONS
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Since it has taken so much time-like about two and a half years-to work out an agreeable formula between Nordair and Quebecair, is the Minister of Transport considering as one possible option leaving Nordair with Air Canada, or could another option be to allow Nordair to be under the control of its employees? In any case will the minister please give us some sort of time-frame or some definite date when Nordair's employees' frustrations will end?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have said from the beginning-and I have not changed my mind on that subject-that I was trying to effect a merger between Regionair and Nordair. That has been a firm position from the beginning.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Finance. I would like to ask the Minister of State if he would kindly tell the House what efforts are being made-and whether they will be successful-to hold a federal-provincial conference in the fall on the economy. Is this going to be held and, if there is a prospect of this, what will the agenda include?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, as all hon. members know, the Prime Minister has had discussions with some of the provincial premiers. Moreover, the Minister of Finance is now visiting the various provincial finance ministers to get their opinion about the present state of the economy, and he also intends to have a much more official meeting with them in the fall. Naturally, the general subject of the state of the economy will be on the agenda of this meeting, as well as other issues, such as negotiations for the fiscal arrangements with the provinces.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. This question may be somewhat academic, unless the minister's colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, backs off from some of his positions and allows the Postmaster General to enter into negotiations.
July 6, 1981

1 want to ask the minister if he is aware that this is the 75th anniversary of the scouting movement in Canada and if he has had any requests for a special stamp to honour this occasion, or if he will be issuing a special stamp when the appropriate time comes to mark the 75 years of character building by the scouting movement in Canada.


Pauline Jewett: What about the Girl Guides?


André Ouellet: Yes, Madam Speaker. We are aware of the anniversary not only of the Boy Scouts, but also of the Girl Guides, and the Post Office Department will be happy to commemorate in due time both the Boy Scouts and the Girl Guides of Canada.
Oral Questions
government can, in those exceptional circumstances, provide some additional assistance for those individuals, given that they are locked in?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I cannot do anything more than I have undertaken to do thus far, and that is to inform myself of the situation, get the information from the other ministers who, the hon. member says, are already informed, and respond to the hon. member when I have that information.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
* *
*
[English1

Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Housing. In Hamilton there is a government-sponsored subdivision across the street from a closed-but currently monitored-dump site. The interest rates for the mortgages have increased from 11.75 per cent to 19 per cent this year. The people there cannot sell because of the high cost of acquiring homes and because of the dump site proximity. Does the minister have any suggestions on what might be done to alleviate this problem for these people who are there primarily because the government decided to put the housing subdivision there?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I did not have previous notice of this question or of the specifics of the location the hon. member has brought to my attention. I would be happy if he would specify the location and the problem so that I can take a look at it.
I might indicate that the federal government alone is not responsible for all matters concerning housing. The location and subdivision approval process is carried on by the local government. It is approved by the provincial government.
However, having said that, if I have notice and if I am given the location of the property, I would be happy to take a look at the matter to see if I can offer any suggestions.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, it may be true that the minister of housing has no knowledge. The Prime Minister is aware of it. The Minister of the Environment is aware of it. Given the very unusual circumstances surrounding this particular subdivision will the minister of housing look at it separate and apart from the normal course of policy decisions, and try to determine whether the


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, but he has left the House, so I will direct it to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
On June 29 I asked the minister when the federal government would be signing the Northlands II agreement with the province of Manitoba. At that time the minister indicated to me that there would be a one-year extension.
The minister has returned. I will direct my question to him. The minister indicated there would be a one-year extension of the Northlands II agreement. Why did he make that statement, in view of the fact that he has not returned telephone calls or answered letters or telex messages asking for negotiation? At no time was there a discussion or agreement on a one-year extension.


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, that type of representation does not take into consideration the daily contacts we have with the hon. member's colleagues in the provincial government. I remind the hon. member that just in the last few months I have met several times with ministers of the Manitoba government and the premier himself. The Prime Minister was in Winnipeg a few weeks ago to announce the most important program of my department in Canada, which will be in Winnipeg.
On the question of Northlands, if there is one government which is sensitive to the plight of the people living in that region, it is the federal government through its various agencies. As I told the hon. member the other day, we have extended that agreement. We are looking at new ways of reducing the disparities of that region.
If the provincial government would like from now on to put its representations to me through the hon. member, fine. I will not dispute that way of doing things, but I will take note of that way of operating.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, the minister can say what he likes; the fact of the matter is that he has not had agreement on that one year extension, and he has not signed the North-
11214

Order Paper Questions
lands II agreement. There has been absolutely no agreement on a one year extension.


LEVEL OF FUNDING PROVIDED UNDER AGREEMENT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, with respect to that one-year extension, the minister has not been returning telephone messages and telexes. Will that one-year extension at least be based on the past level of funding, namely, $18 million, or will it be based on the reduced amount the minister's officials put on the table, which would reduce even further the building of roads and schools in northern Manitoba, to which the minister says his government is committed?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I really feel uncomfortable in answering such questions, but let me assure my hon. colleague that he is completely misinformed. One of the most costly projects I have been working on for several months in all of Canada is precisely northern Manitoba, and I am doing it in very close co-operation with the government of Manitoba. To the hon. member I say, I do not mind if they brief you, but please ask them to put you in their confidence and give you the whole story.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour of tabling in the House, in French and in English, the Solicitor General's Study of Conditional Releases.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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. 1,660, 2,324, 2,349, 2,431,2,486,2,522 and 2,616.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Bosley: Were Canadian journalists invited by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of the Environment, the Secretary of State for External Affairs or any other representative of the government to meet during May, June, July, August and September, 1980, with representatives of the government to discuss constitutional or other questions and, if so, in each case (a) what was his/her name (b) who issued the invitation (c) were any fees or expenses paid or met and, if so, what were they (d) what were the dates of the meetings?


David Michael Collenette: In so far as the Prime Minister's Office is concerned:
(a)	and (d) Canadian journalists were invited by the Prime Minister's Press Office to meet during May, June, July, August and September, 1980, with representatives of the government to discuss constitutional or other questions, as follows: May 5, 1980: Pre-briefing, Visit of President of Mexico, Jose Lopez Portillo
Jack Best, Peter Desbarats, Luc Lavoie, John Ferguson, Craig Oliver, Gale Morris, Peter Lloyd, Brian Kelleher, Paul Racine, Michael Valpy, Terry Wills.
May 5, 1980: Briefing, Visit of late Prime Minister Ohira of Japan
Michael Benedict, Jack Best, Ken Colby, Peter Desbarats, Mike Duffy, Bill Fox, Richard Gwyn, Gilbert Lavoie, Robert Lewis, Craig Oliver, Andy Szende, Jack Redden, Michel Vastel.
May 6, 1980: Briefing, Venice Economic Summit
Kathy Lynas, Gilbert Bringue, Jack Redden, Wayne Cheveldayoff, Mark Phillips, Mike Duffy, Brian Smith, John Ferguson, Jim Munson, Bill Fox, Craig Oliver, David Halton, Brian Kelleher, Mary Janigan, Russ Mills, Stuart Langford, Paul Racine, Bruce Yaccato, Andy Szende, Bill Levitt.
May 26, 1980: Briefing, Visit of President of Mexico, Jose Lopez Portillo
Jack Best, Craig Oliver, Gilbert Bringue, Mary Janigan, Ken Colby, Bill Fox, Fiona Conway, Allan Pressman, Richard Daignault, Stuart Langford, John Ferguson, Peter Lloyd, Norman Fetterley, Jim Maclean, Gilbert Lavoie, Sidney Margies, Jennifer Lewington, Jim Munson, Michael Valpy, Mark Phillips, Michel Vastel, Terry Wills, Andy Szende.
June 4, 1980: Briefing on the Constitution
Craig Oliver, Claude Papineau, Mark Phillips, Paul Racine, Ben Tierney, Michel Vastel, Bruce Yaccato, Mary Janigan, Brian Kelleher, Norman Fetterley, Luc Lavoie, Judy Morrison, Jim Munson, Andy Szende, Geoff Stevens, Terry Wills, John Ferguson, Bill Fox, Mike Benedict, Peter Lloyd, Terry Hargreaves.
June 16, 1980: Briefing on the Constitution and the Economy
July 6, 1981

Nat Cole, Geoffrey Molyneux, William Gold, Andrew Snaddon, Ivor Williams, Dona Harvey, Joan Fraser, Doug Harkness, Claude Bourque, Don Wilson, Bill Callaghan, Ian MacNeil.
(b)	In each instance the invitation was issued by the Prime Minister's Press Office.
(c)	There were no fees or expenses paid or met.
In so far as the Minister of the Environment is concerned:
(a)	and (d) While the minister met frequently with
Canadian journalists to discuss constitutional and other questions, in only two cases were the meetings a result of ministerial initiative.* The two journalists were: Mr. W. Fox and Mr. A. Szende.
(b)	Members of the minister's staff.
(c)	There were no fees or expenses paid or met.
* On several occasions, (d)
The Minister of Justice, the Minister of State (Multicultural-ism), the Secretary of State of External Affairs and the Solicitor General: No.


Mr. Bosley: 1.	Was Mr. John Young, a lawyer who resides and practices law in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, appointed as a director of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and, if so (a) on what date (b) what was the (i) amount of the stipend (ii) amount for expenses, including transportation, hotel accommodations and meals paid to him since his appointment?
2.	Were legal matters handled by the firm Boyne, Jones, Murrant & Young, of 33 Queen Street, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, for the corporation since Mr. Young's appointment and, if so (a) how many (b) how many were handled by the individual partners, Thomas Boyne, Robert Murrant and John Young?
3.	Were legal matters handled by this firm's associates, Maynard Brown and Gordon Proudfoot, for the corporation since Mr. Young's appointment and, if so, how many?
4.	What amount was paid to the firm and individuals named in parts 2 and 3 by the corporation since Mr. Young's appointment?


David Michael Collenette: 1 am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes.
(a)	December 9, 1976.
(b)	(i) $250 a day when the board of directors is meeting.
The stipend was raised from $150 a day as recently as February, 1981.
(ii) When the board of directors is meeting each director is entitled to a subsistence allowance, government-approved hotel rates, plus an allowance for daily meals and incidental expenses, as provided for under CBC by-laws. He or she may also claim any transportation costs actually incurred in connection with any meeting of the board or committee thereof, or while engaged in the business of the corporation.
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Young's expenses have been paid in accordance with these allowances.
2.	Some legal matters have been handled by the firm on behalf of the CBC since September, 1978.
(a)	Three lawsuits and two consultations.
(b)	Thomas Boyne-one consultation.
Robert Murrant-three lawsuits, one consultation.
John Young-none.
3.	Of the five instances noted, one lawsuit was handled by Robert Murrant and Maynard Brown, another lawsuit by Robert Murrant and Gordon Proudfoot. Robert Murrant and Gordon Proudfoot were also involved in one of the consultations.
4.	It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration as its financial arrangements with private firms. The background to this custom is explained in the reply to question No. 2,530 answered November 6, 1975.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Did the Minister of National Revenue establish an advisory committee to make recommendations on the approach to licensing of duty-free shops at border crossings and, if so (a) under what authority (b) what are the names and qualifications of the persons appointed members of the committee?
2.	Does Mr. Ralph Ferguson, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism), serve on the committee and, if so, does this conflict with his duties as a member of Parliament or as a parliamentary secretary?
3.	Does Mr. Claude Tessier, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, serve on the committee and, if so, does this conflict with his duties as a member of parliament or as a parliamentary secretary?
4.	Do either Mr. Ferguson or Mr. Tessier receive an emolument or compensation of any kind including travel or related expenses?
5.	Will the committee, whether or not it includes Mr. Ferguson or Mr. Tessier, have an opportunity to recommend applicants for licenses and, if so, will the political affiliation of the applicants be considered?


Mr. Claude Tessier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: 1.	Yes
(a)	The Duty Free Shop Advisory Committee was authorized by a Cabinet decision.
(b)	The individuals on the Committee were selected by the various associations, agencies and departments taking part in the program. Membership for the Advisory Committee was drawn from the following:
The Canadian Export Association
The Tourism Industry Association of
Canada
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business
The Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise The Department of Transport

July 6, 1981
Order Paper Questions
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Through the Canadian Government Office of Tourism and the Small Business Secretariat The Canadian Crafts Council The Association of Canadian Distillers The Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council
The Canadian Wine Institute
2,	3 and 4.-Please refer to the Parliamentary Secretaries Act.
5.	The committee will not be recommending applicants for licences as the mandate of this advisory committee is specifically limited to the following functions:
The criteria for licensee selection;
The procedures for licensee selection;
The criteria governing standards of operation;
The principle upon which a fee structure is to be established to generate revenue to the federal government apart from the direct departmental costs which are to be recovered from each operator;
The pilot test site(s).


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,591 in the case of the heads of Crown corporations, etc. who are mentioned as belonging to Le Cercle Universi-taire d'Ottawa with fees paid for by the government, in each case, what was the benefit to the taxpayer from such membership?
Compensation for: Brucellosis	Fiscal year: 1957-58 to 1980-81
Nfld and
Year	N.W.T.	P.E.I.	N.S.	19-	R	$	R	$	R	$57-58	2	200	175	748058-59	26	2292	245	1745459-60	15	1826	187	1241160-61	9	871	43	306161-62	7	594	69	533462-63	2	262	12	93463-64	1	133	20	178764-65	3	392	18	127465-66	6	685	5	612	77	587466-67	3	280	5	521	27	194067-68	31	236368-69	3	35969-70	1	105	7	69470-71	1	120	71-72	1	304	1	17472-73	2	19873-74	2	23074-75	7	1400	5	92875-76	3	500	5	1300	1	45176-77	5	1348	1	60077-78	4	1909	12	214578-79	2	187	631	14375279-80	5	203380-81	1	78	2	920


Donald James Johnston: (a)	I am informed by the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. as follows: the president of AECL holds a membership on behalf of the corporation in Le Cercle Universitaire d'Ottawa. This membership provides him with appropriate facilities to pursue the work of the corporation and to meet AECL domestic and foreign clients and associates in a more informal setting. Benefits to the taxpayer result from AECL's successful pursuit of commercial opportunities.
(b)	I am informed by the National Research Council as follows: the benefit of a membership in Le Cercle Universitaire d'Ottawa is being able to extend authorized hospitality and meeting accommodation to visiting scientists and dignitaries from Canada and abroad, on occasions consistent with the role of the NRC as the federal government's principal research agency. Also, the NRC has no other such facility directly available to them.
(c)	I am informed by the Science Council of Canada as follows: although the council's reply to question 1,591 showed that membership fees are paid to Le Cercle Universitaire d'Ottawa for Dr. Claude Fortier by the corporation, these fees are reimbursed.
(d)	I am informed by the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and the Royal Canadian Mint as follows: the memberships are considered to be a legitimate business expense in the interest of the corporation's activities.


Mr. Herbert: Since the inception of the program to eradicate brucellosis, by province and by year, what was the amount paid and number of cattle involved?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: N.B.	Quebec	OntarioR	$	R	S	R	$2	140	172	10252188	12398	5972	413792	4527	357806234	18030	8980	579111	12071	89361630	1951	9814	635499	9803	71321544	3233	10868	717574	6167	45593035	2052	9396	628292	3741	27462913	861	14062	924089	2943	22137217	978	13072	844740	2505	19150816	1319	9139	610711	1067	8328014	1205	5007	339732	770	6174710	761	3368	229593	669	527171	65	2085	144905	785	614942	198	1494	147139	268	283851695	171644	230	252214	382	733	74796	270	31166455	49718	248	311161	111	814	110296	1501	2407034	898	1694	337745	6097	12615893	846	2707	561888	5093	20803417	1057	5879	1327404	12208	30006283	536	4679	1371301	11112	29712753	453	3043	714871	4283	9791242	1706	2576	1338198	3335	18738691	1331	1989	1517764	718	389614
July 6, 1981

Manitoba
57-58	R	S58-59	102	717859-60	3749	25880960-61	5924	50114861-62	8102	55872862-63	2697	18387563-64	1336	9714364-65	1029	7235765-66	532	3621666-67	467	2785267-68	509	3340668-69	354	2362869-70	303	3366470-71	676	7085371-72	553	5864172-73	554	6450573-74	898	12453374-75	1398	26754975-76	4145	73693476-77	4270	81589977-78	3017	64429878-79	2091	40898479-80	1068	39985480-81	2281	1017022
R: Reactor
Saskatchewan
Order Paper Questions Alberta	B.C.
Total
R	$	R
1218	81246
4385	288254
3688	247891
4284	288293
3918	269408
1931	133209
1044	73744
832	56576
886	60823
705	48484
387	28202
885	93752
1074	I20056
2026	217929
2477	286850
4028	539903
4320	811096
3090	571265
5620	1085523
3531	497642
3454	564721
1090	335294
299	79915
2275
2560
2196
297
184
205
361
2264
4571
5638
697
$	R 22 45
6654	66
152488	1965
211268	362
169578	278
219953	186
148916	170
66643	66
19657	67
14251	112
11639	52
20585	9
21443	3
22505	1
40478	3
237079	97
496939	135
996485	1901
847195	2202
1157636	1609
1055168	1797
919962	817
205447	16
$	R
1309	373
3837	2323
4093	29791
139669	33551
26262	33010
19996	22639
13035	23815
12420	20054
4750	12745
5110	7543
8907	5623
4609	3851
878	3181
306	3884
94	3806
575	4100
24041	8849
44568	15924
280146	21516
384116	34763
262473	29687
363577	30942
416426	1680
7489	6004
19381 896003 2062804 2395793 2267216 1549026 1611582 1346329 866666 518867 390482 274901 325400 409643 405991 473440 1276896 3222712 5230156 7463770 6909215 4230837 5287342 3219580


Mr. Fretz: Does the government intend to contribute to the launching and implementation of the International Program for the Development of Communications and, if so (a) what amount of money and manpower (b) what are the names of the Canadians involved (c) which international agencies will receive assistance (d) which countries have been selected for assistance?


David Michael Collenette: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows: as a member of the 35-state Intergovernmental Council of the International Program for the Development of Communication (IPDC) Canada will participate in the first meeting of the council in mid-June; at that time Canada and the other member states will contribute their views on the organization of the work programme and the direction it should take.
(a) and (b) Canadian contributions to the IPDC cannot be determined until such organizational and functional decisions have been made. It is not expected that actual project selection will be decided upon during the first meeting of the council.
Following the meeting consultations will continue with appropriate Canadian government departments and non-governmental organizations to determine the nature and substance of Canadian participation in the program.
(c)	and (d) It is the Canadian view that close co-operation is necessary between the IPDC and international agencies
involved in communications, but it is premature at this stage to specify the exact role of these agencies vis-a-vis the IPDC, or the countries which will receive assistance through the program.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs contract with Michael Mills Productions Ltd., Westmount, for $10,000 for the provision of special artwork services and, if so (a) what services were performed (b) for what purpose?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: DSS awarded a contract to Michael Mills Productions Ltd., Westmount, on behalf of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The value of the contract was $10,000.00.
(a)	The services provided were for the artwork and production of a "children's teaching aid" in comic book style in both official languages.
(b)	For the education of children regarding hazardous symbols such as poisons, explosives, inflammables etc.
[ Translation]


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

July 6, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Beatty:: Madam Speaker, I rise today for the ninth time with regard to question No. 1,852 which I put on the order paper December 9. You will remember when I rose in the House for the eighth time last Tuesday that the parliamentary secretary, in giving his excuse as to why he has been unable to get the minister responsible for freedom of information to give an answer to the House, indicated that the answer appeared to be more complicated than it seemed at first. I wonder if I can just put on the record for you the wording of that question so you can see that it can be answered in less than one paragraph. The question is this:
1.	Is the chairman of the Canadian Film Development Corporation included in the corporation's conflict of interest guidelines?
2.	Does the chairman maintain an interest in a private law practice and, if so (a) with which firms and in what capacity (b) does the firm conduct any business on behalf of clients in the film industry?
Again, that question could be answered if the government chose to do so. If the minister responsible was not stonewalling this House it could be answered today. The information was given by the chairman of the CFDC to the minister some months ago. The term of office of the chairman has run out since that time and the minister still has not supplied the parliamentary secretary with the information.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has, as he indicated, risen for the ninth time on this particular question. He seems to believe that repetition of his question will hasten the answer.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Well, something should.


David Michael Collenette: I have told him quite sincerely on a number of occasions that what to him may require a simple answer or may appear to be a simple answer may very well require a complex answer, because the government wishes to answer questions in their totality, if I may borrow that phrase. Therefore, we want to make sure when answers are tabled in the House that they satisfy every aspect of the hon. member's concern.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my question No. 1,483, submitted July 17, 1980, with regard to FIRA approval of conditions relating to Houdaille Industries in Oshawa, has not yet been answered. Given that FIRA has indicated they provided the answer almost a year ago, I wonder if before the House rises for the summer the minister could find out what became of it. It may well have been mislaid, but the answer apparently has been given some many months ago to the appropriate minister.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, again without accepting the premise that the answer has already reached the minister, I will certainly look into the matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, July 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill S-6, to amend the Two-Price Wheat Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Madam Speaker, when I was speaking on Friday last about this bill I was emphasizing the fact that unfortunately it has turned out to be an act of fraud on western farmers. I say that for these reasons. In 1974 the government was supposed to be putting forward a subsidy for farmers producing wheat for human consumption in Canada. This has turned out to be a subsidy for consumers and a large proportion of it was paid for by producers. The second point was that, in effect, it was a seven-year price control mechanism which no other sector of the community had to endure. The third point is that this particular bill is retroactive for nearly three years to avoid a $200 million liability.
Therefore I suggest, for those three reasons, that something should be done to this bill; either take it out and bring it in again, or postpone it for a while and change it so that we do not have this continuing act of fraud laid on our shoulders.
The final point is that in the view of western Canadians, due to the acts of this Parliament, we have had to suffer a series of hammer blows over the last 35 years: the British wheat agreement of 1946-50; the dropping of the international wheat agreement in 1968; the price cutting periods we have experienced in the last 15 years; the LIFT program which deliberately took farmers out of production of a product desperately needed by the world's hungry. More recently we have had the Russion embargo fiasco, the messed up fodder program, the messed up herd maintenance program, and over the last 15 years we have had the railways and grain companies deliberately trying to get out of the grain business. More recently again we have had this renewed fight over the Crows-nest Pass rates, the fight over the last year on energy pricing and the Constitution. These are all part of what western Canadians feel is a direct attack on them as westerners. Unfortunately, if you look at the figures, this is not for the good of Canada.
So I would like to suggest that the House recommend to the government that it drop this bill, draft a new one which proposes a genuine two-price system for farmers so that Canadian farmers, whether they be in the east or the west, who produce wheat for human consumption in Canada can get the same protection for their product as other sectors of the economy.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-6 is an attempt to legalize what the government has been doing for some time. The fact that what it has been doing has been
July 6, 1981

going on since 1978 is a pretty fair indication of the commitment and interest the government has shown in agriculture over those years. It is also a pretty fair indication of the kind of speedy action we are going to get on agricultural problems from this government. If it has taken them three years to repeal a portion of an act, we will wait a long time for more substantial legislation. Why is it that the government always requires farmers to pay for what happens? We must take a look at this particular bill and at the whole range of agricultural legislation.
During the war Canada did its patriotic duty by selling wheat to the allies, particularly to Great Britain, at several dollars under the world price. The compensation to farmers was never paid. Farmers received several hundreds of millions of dollars less for their wheat during that period of time than they would have if it was sold on the world market. This was probably a valuable and necessary contribution to the war effort, but it was not spread over the entire nation. It fell to farmers to contribute to the war effort.
After the war an agreement was made between the Canadian government and the British government to supply wheat to Britain at fixed prices. At that time it seemed to be a fairly likely and acceptable agreement. However, because of the fluctuation in prices neither Canada nor Britain honoured the agreement. But this agreement spawned the Two-Price Wheat Act we are discussing today.
It takes so long between the time an idea comes to the government and an act is passed that things change greatly. The agreement was supposed to guarantee farmers the cost of production of grain on the export market as well as on the domestic market, but it did neither of those things. The Two-Price Wheat Act only guaranteed a floor price and a ceiling price for wheat sold to the domestic market.
Sometimes floor and ceiling prices work well. They worked well when the price of grain was within those two areas, but when the world price exceeded the ceiling price farmers ended up subsidizing consumers. Until the price levels were changed last year, that subsidy again cost farmers a substantial amount. I noticed that last Friday, as reported in Hansard, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) referred to an amount of approximately $1 million per week as the subsidy by farmers to consumers of bread in Canada. Again farmers paid.
Just lately there was an embargo on the sale of grain to Russia. Again farmers had to pay. In the process of paying compensation because of the embargo hopefully we have established one fact for all time, and that is that when a group of people such as farmers do something which is the responsibility of all Canada, they will not have to pay for it themselves as the farmers did during the Second World War. At least we established the fact that when one acts for all Canada one should be compensated in some way. However, the farmers paid again. This time they were paid the meagre compensation the government decided to pay after 17 months of doing
Two-Price Wheat Act
nothing or very little. The amount was probably less than half the actual losses of the farmers during that period of time.
The Canadian Wheat Board has a mandate from Parliament to obtain the best possible price for farmers' grain. This is done with farmers' money. No taxpayers' money goes to the Wheat Board to provide this service, either domestically or internationally. The Two-Price Wheat Act does not allow the Wheat Board to fulfil its mandate. Legislation such as this confines its ability to obtain the best possible return for farmers.
At present Canadian farmers are being attacked in many areas. They cannot afford to pay a subsidy for the actions of government, for the benefit of consumers, or for the war effort. They could not afford to pay in the past, they cannot afford to pay now, and the way things are going they will not be able to pay in the future. There is an attack on the basic farming or agricultural industry which is affecting the incomes of farmers.
A great effort is being made on the part of many organizations, some of which are very closely attached to the grain industry, to do something about the Crow rate. Most people feel that the rate should be increased to a compensatory rate, which would again make the farmers pay. The situation is such that the industry is barely making enough profit to survive. This is happening in the grain industry as well as in the pork and beef industries. These factors make a considerable difference in the incomes of farmers and can put them out of business.
Also there was a great attack on the marketing boards which were established in the agricultural industry, many of them by this particular government. This attack suggests that the agricultural industry should return to the free marketing system in all areas. Nowhere else in the country is any industry on a free market basis. The idea of supply and demand went out many years ago. No industry with a union goes out and asks how much one will work for. The unions establish the amount paid for a particular job through negotiation. No manufacturer of automobiles would establish its price by producing a million automobiles, putting them on the market and asking buyers: "How much will you pay for this automobile?", regardless of how much it cost the manufacturer.
If we eliminate marketing boards, what we are asking the farmer to do is to produce his grain, produce his meat or whatever product he has, put it on the market and say, "Regardless of what it costs, give me what you think you can afford, or what you want to afford." We have had a very broad attack on marketing boards. We have also had an attack on farmers' income in the form of closing down of rail lines across the west. Many farmers could expect to deliver their grain to a centre which was only six or eight miles from their farms. By the process of closing down the rail lines, a process which is sanctioned by this government, farmers must now haul that grain 25 or 30 miles with increased fuel and mechanical costs.

July 6, 1981
Two-Price Wheat Act
Therefore, in all of these areas, the farmer, the grain producer, is in a situation which is increasing his costs of production, with no guarantee that he will be paid for those increases. Then we ask him to subsidize the consumer as well.
I have nothing against subsidizing the consumer, particularly the person at the lower end of the income bracket who is unable to buy bread at a high cost. However, we should not ask the farmer to do this as part of his contribution to Canada. He must at least expect to recover the cost of production.
Hence, although I recognize that this bill, which should have been brought forward and passed three years ago, is probably a necessity, it should only be dealt with in the light of the real problems in grain production across the nation; not only the problems in the west for farmers operating under the Canadian Wheat Board, but also the problems of farmers who are producing grain all across the country.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, when I read Bill S-6, by which the government wants to repeal the 1974 act, a saying which was quite common in the west a few years ago and is still common came to mind. There were four professional people, a minister, a lawyer, a doctor and a farmer, who were making brief statements as to what they did for the people. The lawyer said in his brief statement, "I plead for all"; and the crowd clapped. The doctor said, "I prescribe for all"; and the crowd clapped. The minister said, "I pray for all"; and the crowd clapped a little more enthusiastically. Then the farmer's turn came, and his simple statement was, "1 pay for all". There was not any clapping.
This bill illustrates, in a very definite way, how the farmer is always at-excuse the expression-the dirty end of the stick. The farmer is the backbone of this country. Without the farmer we would have no food. Yet, as has been pointed out by a number of hon. members, including my colleague who just sat down, there is no other industry which pays full price for everything it buys but which has no say in regard to the price of the produce that it sells.
It is really amazing why agriculture has continued to grow. It is not surprising that many smaller farmers, particularly those starting operation, are going into bankruptcy because of this very tight squeeze. This bill is another example of a western resource being sold at less than world price. At no time has the farmer in western Canada paid less than full price for his combines, for his tractors, for his trucks or for his cars. At no time has the farmer in western Canada paid less than full price for fish or manufactured goods from the east. As a matter of fact, he paid more than his full price on many occasions because of subsidization and tariffs which make it necessary for the western farmer to pay far more for his shoes and clothes than he would normally have to, were there no high tariffs protecting the clothing and the shoe industry.
But the farmer never seems to have any protection. When we are working out tariffs in Geneva, what do we give? We invariably give something which is of value to the farmer to get something else which is of value to all the people. During the hard times in Britain at the beginning of the Second World War, the Canadian government had the brilliant idea of
sending the people of Britain a million bushels of wheat, I believe. The people of Canada were excited about the imaginative project of sending this food to people in Britain, who were almost singlehandedly at that time fighting against totalitarianism, communism and fascism and having a very tough time. But to make a long story short, that food was not a gift from Canada; it was a gift from the wheat farmers of Canada. They were never reimbursed for that wheat. The people of Britain thanked Canada, but they should have thanked the farmers of Canada because it was the farmers who gave that gift to those people.
Never have the farmers paid less for freight. As a matter of fact, we pay more than our fair share. At one time the price of freight was so ridiculous that we would ship things from Toronto to Vancouver and back to Calgary because we could do it cheaper than shipping it straight from Toronto to Calgary. If anyone from grade one up can see any logic in that, I would like to see him stand up in shame. However, that is what happened. Gradually we got to the point where that situation was eliminated. However, the farmer still pays full price to send his wool to the east and full price to buy the garments back afterwards on the freight. The farmer is not a cry baby; but these matters are lurking at the very heart of our agricultural industry. We are always waiting for solutions, but the solution never seems to come.
This bill was passed in the Senate on June 3, 1980. It has taken an awfully long time to get into the House of Commons. I wonder if that is-


Jean-Luc Pepin: It has been here three times already.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Is that because of a priority of the government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It has been here three times. Third time now.


Gordon Edward Taylor: But it has never been passed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, because you are speaking.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Well, the government sets out the legislation. If the government would leave it before the House long enough for debate, it could be passed.


An hon. Member:: Quit talking and let us go.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Well, yes. That is the whole trouble with hon. members. They do not want anyone to talk. They just want to pass this stuff. They do not want to know what it will do. 1 am not in favour of the bill passing, frankly. I think it is an insult to the western farmers. The Liberals can holler all they like, but I still have the right to free speech. That is one right we have not yet lost in this country.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It was presented by your own party in 1979.


Gordon Edward Taylor: This bill would repeal the two-price wheat system. Perhaps the reason the Liberals are becoming so excited is that this legislation would eliminate the obligation of
July 6, 1981

the government to make subsidy payments in accordance with the Two-Price Wheat Act. This was stopped in 1978 yet the bill has still not been passed. We ask our people outside to obey the law. It is almost time for the government to start obeying the law. Until this legislation is passed, the present act is still law. The government knows that.
In 1978 the Canadian Wheat Board regulations established a minimum and a maximum price for wheat for human domestic consumption. The senator in charge of the Wheat Board announced a minimum price of $5 and a maximum price of $7 per bushel of wheat for human consumption. There was no maximum for durum wheat. I would like to know why there is a maximum for any kind of wheat. Why is the government deciding that $7 will be the maximum price for wheat? I do not see any maximum price for electricity which goes from eastern Canada to the United States. I do not see any maximum or minimum payments for coal which we import from the United States while leaving our Canadian mines idle. Why are we setting a maximum and a minimum price for wheat, particularly a maximum price? The previous minimum was $3.25 per bushel, yet the world price during that time went up to $6 or $7, and perhaps even higher. Who took the loss? The western wheat growers took the loss.
The people of Canada are being subsidized by the benevolent government which uses the money which should go into the pockets of the farmers. That is exactly what happened. We are now setting a maximum price at $7 a bushel. Why should there be a maximum price at all? If the world price goes up to $10, why should our farmers not receive that? You do not see anyone outside our country putting down their prices for the commodities we buy. Oil on the world market sells for between $40 and $50 per barrel while the price we pay to western Canada is $18 per barrel. What is fair about that? Now we are trying to do the same thing to our farmers. It does not matter what the wheat price goes to in the world market, our farmers will not receive more than $7 unless they are growing durum wheat. Surely any hon. member would agree that is not fair. If a maximum price is to be established, surely the cost of production plus a reasonable profit should be taken into consideration.
If that were the case then the situation would have to be flexible since costs of production change every year. This year costs are rising. They are rising due to actions of governments, including this one, which placed an excise tax on natural gas and raised the price of fertilizer, which in turn causes the cost of production to rise. Many people pleaded with the government to remove that excise tax because it affected production. The government said that it would stick with it, and stick with it it did.
If there is to be a maximum and minimum price for wheat, then it should not be confined to the farmers of Canada. Why is the government not trying to work out a definite arrangement with the Americans since Canada and the U.S. ship about 65 per cent or 70 per cent of their wheat to the markets of the world? There is no use trying to undercut each other. A few years ago Premier Lougheed made a trip to Russia and
Two-Price Wheat Act
found out that we were playing second fiddle to the United States with regard to wheat sales. We only sold wheat when we beat the Americans at the bargaining table and the Premier of Alberta, who represented a number of farmers, did not like that. Later on I went to the Wheat Board and discussed this matter with the people there. They did not like the idea of Premier Lougheed going to Russia and talking about the price of wheat. I told them that I thought they should be happy about that and that every premier in Canada sould take an interest in the price their producers are receiving and try to get them a better one.
If the American and Canadian governments got together and established a price under which we will not sell-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Remember uranium?


Gordon Edward Taylor: We do not want a cartel. We want something which will give the producer his cost of production plus a reasonable profit. That is all we want. The minister's government is prepared to accept oil from a cartel, a real cartel which places no emphasis whatsoever on the costs of production. It does not cost $50 a barrel to produce oil or anything like that. An artificial price is set at what the market will bear. The government is prepared to use that oil instead of our own at 75 per cent of the price. We are not asking for a cartel. We are asking that the price take into consideration the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. I say to the minister that there is no other industry in Canada which would not expect the same thing. But every industry, if it is to stay in business, must obtain its cost of production and a reasonable profit.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You should know that it has been tried for a full decade now.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We are not trying hard enough. The minister may be trying, but is the senator in charge of the Wheat Board trying? He is spending a great deal of time on prosecuting the farmers instead of trying to get something for them, as I will show in a minute. Instead of trying to get something for the farmers he is prosecuting them with their own money.
If we must establish a price, then let us not establish it just for Canadians. Let us establish a price which is reasonable and sensible, one which will be flexible so that the costs of production can be included as they change. I would wager that 90 per cent of the farmers, if not 100 per cent, would jump for joy if the government would do just that. It is amazing that the farmers have been able to stay in business up until now. They only do so because of the family farm. The wife goes out and looks after the hens, the kids gather the eggs and the grandparents go out and pick berries. That is how farmers survive. Do not think that they are rich people. They not only work eight hours a day, but 12 or 14, and sometimes right around the clock during harvest and seeding time. They work hard for what they receive and all they are asking for is a reasonable price-the cost of production plus a reasonable profit.
I believe it was the last member who spoke who said something about the producers providing a subsidy of some $20 million to the consumers since the price was locked in at

July 6, 1981
Two-Price Wheat Act
$5 per bushel. Many farmers are becoming very disgruntled about this situation. They are tired of waiting. I would say 99 per cent of them want to stay in Canada but they want to receive a fair deal too. But they are becoming frustrated and no one seems to listen. When we talk about a fair price for crops, members on the government benches begin to heckle. I do not know why they should be so against the farmer. A lot of these farmers came from Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. They worked hard for what they built up. They built a heritage and they want to stay in Canada. I think this country should take definite steps to give them a decent standard of living. They should be paid their cost of production plus a reasonable profit.
Some people may ask what a reasonable profit is. It is said that a reasonable profit for the banks is now 19 per cent or 20 per cent. I would be amazed if the farmers want that much, but why should they not? When the banks get 20 per cent profit on loans of money, why should the farmers not get 20 per cent for producing food for the people of this country and the world? That could be negotiated and the farmers would be prepared to negotiate. The bill is still in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I think some payment should be made to the farmers up until it is repealed. We simply should not say, "We started this in 1978, so we are not going to pay anything after 1978."
I should like to come to another point, Mr. Speaker. I want to emphasize that the cost of production should be flexible. The $5 and the $3.25 prices have been in effect for seven years. During that period other prices have gone up but not the price of wheat. The farmers still cannot get more than $5 per bushel. They are not asking for a rip-off but for a price that will cover the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. They want it to be flexible and they want it to take into account the items that contribute to the cost of production.
According to information which comes from the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers do not know whether to grow wheat or barley or rye or flax because they do not know what the price of these crops will be until well into the crop year. They are not told two months ahead of time so that they can make plans. I can tell hon. members that no one knows better than the farmer what he should grow on his land. There may be brains at the Wheat Board in Winnipeg and in Ottawa, but it is the farmer who knows what his land should produce. If he knew before the beginning of the crop year what the price of the various crops would be, he could make his decision on whether to grow barley or wheat, say.
I want to deal now with something that I consider to be a national disgrace. I believe the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has left the House and will likely be back shortly. 1 would urge him to use his influence in connection with the problems with wheat storage. We had bumper crops in 1978 throughout the west, particularly in the Stavely area. As a result, there was a shortage of storage and the farmers would
have had to pile their wheat and barley on the ground, which would have resulted in a 10 per cent loss of wheat.
It happened that the Alberta Wheat Pool elevator in Stavely had room for all the quotas and then had room to spare, so the agent took the grain in for storage. He did not have a quota but was simply going to store it so that the farmers would not have to pile it in the fields. He had enough space for all the quotas and made a monthly rental charge for storage in accordance with the rules of the Wheat Board. I think any reasonable man would say that was a sensible thing to do, but the bureaucrats in the Canadian Wheat Board had some regulations to enforce. They considered this to be an illegal act, on the grounds that any grain in an elevator over and above the quota is an average and is illegal, even if storage tickets have been issued and charges levied and paid.
As a result, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board, a farmer-owned organization, charged 53 farmers because they dared arrange for storage in an Alberta Wheat Pool farmer-owned elevator to protect their grain. The Canadian Wheat Board then seized all the permit books and commenced legal proceedings. The local wheat pool supervisor told the agent that he was at liberty to issue cheques for the grain but the people who stored 70,000 bushels of barley were not paid for several months. Each farmer was summoned to appear in court, as was the elevator agent. This was a case where a farmer body, established to aid in the equitable sale of grain, rode roughshod over the producer to whom they were responsible. It did not bother the Canadian Wheat Board that adequate storage was available; it did not bother the Canadian Wheat Board that the elevator was accepting payment or that storage tickets had been issued.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Again, the Chair would have to be convinced that the storage facilities to which the hon. member is referring have reference to the bill. I invite the hon. member to indicate to the Chair how that matter can relate to the bill.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I will tie it in with this bill because it involves the price of wheat and the gain or otherwise of producers.
The case was heard by a magistrate who dismissed the charges. The Canadian Wheat Board was still not satisfied, however, and appealed. The appeal court, following the Court of Queen's Bench, found that there should be a new trial-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I still invite the hon. member to convince me that what he is referring to now has anything to do with either the first, second or third clause of this bill, which is very short indeed. I invite the hon. member to address his remarks to the bill.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the bill takes away from the farmers a large sum of money to which they are now entitled.


Some hon. Members:: No.


André Ouellet: You do not understand.
July 6, 1981


Gordon Edward Taylor: It does. Certainly it does. It is denying the farmers what the government would otherwise have to pay.


André Ouellet: What a stupidity!


Gordon Edward Taylor: The same thing is going on through the court cases-


André Ouellet: You have been wasting our time for half an hour.


Gordon Edward Taylor: -in which the Wheat Board is using the farmers' money to prosecute the farmers-


André Ouellet: You don't know what you are talking about.


Gordon Edward Taylor: -and forcing the farmers-


An hon. Member:: Shame on you!


Gordon Edward Taylor: You can holler all you like. If it was your pocketbook that was affected, it would be a little different.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Again, the Chair is waiting for an indication that the hon. member is referring to the bill.


André Ouellet: Talk about the bill.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am indicating that this is tied just as closely to the bill as a number of other items which have been discussed already. The transportation of grain was discussed in reference to the bill. The construction of hopper cars was discussed in regard to the bill, and this point is just as closely tied to the bill as those items are. They are all connected to the price of wheat. I do not say the other matters should not have been discussed, but if Your Honour is going to allow some he should not disallow others.
The legislation which was enacted by Parliament to establish the Canadian Wheat Board stated that the board was incorporated with the object of marketing in an orderly manner. Mr. Speaker, marketing in an orderly manner is tied in with this bill. When farmers tried to protect their wheat by putting it in an elevator that was partly empty, they were taken to court and the case was lost, and lost again. Now the Wheat Board wants to start proceedings all over again. Is that orderly marketing or is it persecution-not prosecution but persecution-of the farmers?
In my view, the minister should insist that the Wheat Board desist from this type of prosecution. It is not in accordance with the idea of orderly marketing and is not in the interest of the production of food in this country.
Let us look at the matter of wheat transportation for a moment or two. Farmers are expecting improved transportation facilities. Transportation is at the very root of the wheat problem in western Canada. Construction of the elevator at Prince Rupert is of vital importance, as is the provision of additional hopper cars. These things have already been dis-
Two-Price Wheat Act
cussed. Surely we are not going to have two rules in this House. Hopper cars and transportation have been discussed every time we debate this bill now before this House. Is the Chair now suddenly going to clamp down and say we cannot discuss these topics any more? If we are going to set rules, let us put them in at the beginning and make them applicable to everyone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I do not think the Chair needs direction as to how to govern this House. We have our rules and procedures. All I do is to invite hon. members to respect their own rules and procedures. That is precisely what I am suggesting to the hon. member for Bow River. Perhaps previously hon. members have not done this. I said it before and I say it again, the Chair has been very lenient. I invite the hon. member once more to address his remarks to this bill.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, we will leave the Stavely farmers out. They have been left out so many times now, I guess they will not mind being left out of the debate. But this is just another instance of how the farmers of western Canada are being treated.
This bill is telling farmers that they cannot get the best price in the world today. It is telling them that the government is going to set a maximum price, and that is what the farmers will get.


Mr. Evans:: What happens when the price falls?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Hon. members over there are harping again. I wish some of them would visit a few farmers and see what they are going through. You shout enough about your own pay cheques. Give the farmers a chance to get a little of something from what they produce. This bill is not doing that. The maximum price farmers can get is $7, even if the world price rises to $8, $9 or $10. The maximum farmers can get is $7. Do you call that fair?


John Leslie Evans: What is the minimum?


Gordon Edward Taylor: I would like to see hon. members in their industries, in their jobs, accept that kind of a situation. Keep mumbling over there; you do not bother me a bit. You just show your ignorance about what is going on.
Farmers are getting fed up with this kind of treatment. Surely a labourer is worthy of his hire. Surely farmers should get a proper price for what they produce. We make sure farmers pay the full price for the cars, the trucks, the combines, the tractors, the plows, the manure spreaders and everything else that goes into making up a farm. They pay full price for lumber. They pay full price for the food they buy. Now this bill is establishing a set price above which farmers cannot go for the produce they sell. This is just a continuation of what farmers have been going through for years. Some day the axe will fall and the farmers will get fed up with this kind of treatment.

July 6, 1981
Two-Price Wheat Act


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to intervene in the debate, but I am doing so this afternoon in response to the irresponsible remarks which have been made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). I am absolutely appalled at the conduct and the arguments of the hon. member. He opposes and speaks against this bill and is trying to convince farmers in western Canada that this is a bill against their interests.
I just want to put the record straight. Probably the hon. member does not know, but he should know, that the exact bill, word for word, was tabled in Parliament by his colleague and friend, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) who was then minister of transport in the Clark government.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell the whole story.


André Ouellet: That was Bill C-7. It was introduced by the then minister of transport on behalf of the Clark government. That bill is exactly the same as the one we are discussing today.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell the whole story.


André Ouellet: I am asking the hon. member, what is the difference between Bill C-7 and today's bill presented by the current Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin)?


Gordon Edward Taylor: The administration. That is the difference.


André Ouellet: The hon. member for Bow River pretends that his colleague-


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I contend that the minister is not rising on a point of order, he is rising in debate.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am making a speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I did not recognize the hon. minister on a point of order; I recognized the hon. minister in the debate.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is surprising that when the Conservatives get the truth they are all upside down, just like the hon. member.
i am intervening in this debate to clarify the situation and to stop this nonsense put forward by the hon. member for Bow River.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The farmers don't think so.


André Ouellet: It is no wonder that some farmers in western Canada are misinformed when they are represented by the kind of member of Parliament who twists reality and tries to convey to members of Parliament that this legislation is legislation against interests of farmers in western Canada.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is.


André Ouellet: When the Conservatives were in power some months ago, the then minister of transport presented exactly the same bill, word for word.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell them about the administration of it.


An hon. Member:: This one is better.


André Ouellet: Surely the hon. member for Bow River is not going to convey to the public that his friend and colleague from Vegreville was acting against the interests of western farmers?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Did you hear the hon. member the other day? You should listen to him.


André Ouellet: I want to say that the type of conduct demonstrated by some members of the opposition who constantly filibuster legislation makes Parliament unworkable. At some point we will have to take our responsibility and find ways to speed up passage of legislation that is wanted and is important for the good conduct of the economy.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Bring in closure. You are used to doing that. If you don't like it, shut them up. Why don't you close off debate? Don't let them say anything; that is freedom of speech! In fact, that is Liberal freedom of speech.


André Ouellet: That is the respect for democracy in action!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. This is becoming a shouting match. I heard the hon. member for Bow River previously. Now it is the turn of the hon. minister. I invite the hon. minister also to address his remarks to the bill.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think my point has been made. I want to urge our colleagues on both sides of the House to pass this legislation, which is important, urgent and absolutely essential for good administration of the government. I hope we will have common sense in this place and speeches that are to the point, and that very soon this legislation will be approved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell us where the bill is going. You have not said one word about this bill.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the Two-Price Wheat Act, I can state firsthand that the farmers of western Canada are not happy with pricing and the way the government is handling the two-price wheat system. It is interesting to note that there are a couple of commodities which come under the two-price system, one being wheat, which we are dealing with in Bill S-6, and the other oil. Both of these commodities come from a certain area of the country. At very great expense, both benefit the part of
July 6, 1981

the country from which the minister who just spoke comes. Therefore, he can well get up in this House and defend his actions with vigour.
However, if he would speak to the farmers in western Canada about the two-price system and the fact that down through the years it has taken millions of dollars out of their pockets while they have had to pay full price for every commodity they bought from industrial Canada, and often at many more times the price, he would find the attitude is quite different from what he perceived it to be today, particularly as it relates to wheat and the cost of production, as related by my colleague from Alberta.
We in western Canada are very serious about this situation. If the federal government is going to put in place a productive system which will bring about increased production of wheat for the benefit of Canadians and others throughout the world, it had better start bringing in positive legislation, not this kind. I see the minister has left the chamber.
It is important that the government know what is happening. Should the western Canadian farmer be called upon to subsidize other consumers in Canada? They are willing to do that to a point, but they believe that all Canadians should accept that responsibility, not only the farmers of western Canada.
The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) stated in the debate last Friday that this is costing the farmers in western Canada up to a million dollars a week. This is unacceptable and should be changed. The same is happening with regard to oil. Western Canadians receive $18.75 a barrel with the $1 increase on July 1. However, there are some good terms. There is the "blended price", the "compensation price", and the $43 a barrel price that is paid to Mexico and to OPEC. There is a two-price system, one for western Canada and one for offshore oil coming into this country.
The same is happening in the wheat industry. It is very relevant how western Canadians perceive fairness as a result of the federal government's actions. How long can this go on? Western farmers are productive. At one time the farmers made up 97 per cent of the population of North America. Today they make up less than 5 per cent of the population. They produce enough to feed all of North America and a good part of the rest of the world.
If this government continues to bring in this kind of legislation as it relates to wheat, there will be the same production situation that we now have in the oil industry in western Canada. That is what will happen if the government is not careful. It is time the government did something positive for the grain farmers.
What has the cost been to the farmer? We all know the cost of production. 1 read in the Toronto Star today about a farmer who is going broke because the interest payments on his farm are $8,000 more than his gross income. This is a situation that must be looked at very seriously. What is happening when farmers must purchase tractors, machinery, equipment and so on? The farmer must pay full price and
Two-Price Wheat Act
often a protected price for the commodity. He could bring in a small John Deere tractor from West Germany at quite a saving. This is because the government protects the industrial area of Canada.
When it comes to selling wheat, who does the government protect? It protects the same people at the expense of the farmer. The farmer must pay when he buys and pay again when he sells. Are the farmers satisfied with this situation? No.
I should not be political about this, but there was a good example on the weekend. The NDP had a little meeting in Vancouver. It came through loud and clear that a segment of the NDP are not satisfied with what is going on in this House and with the centralist control which dominates oil, wheat and the lives of Canadians. The convention in Vancouver should give the message to those in government that there are some pretty clear thinking people in western Canada. They have very strong views on such issues as the Canada Wheat Act and the amendments with regard to the two-price system.
The western farmer is asking how long can this go on? How long can he continue to pay the high prices plus a subsidy to industry on everything he buys? When he sells, it is at a low price. How can he pay his bills and stay in business? Bankruptcies are up. I mentioned earlier the high interest rates. This is related to the cost of production for the farmer. Pressures on the farmer have never been greater. They are closing in. Bankruptcies are higher than ever before.
If this situation continues, by next spring many more young farmers will be faced with bankruptcies. They will not be able to maintain a fluid financial position. I ask the government to take a good look at this situation. The laxity in bringing forward this bill is a good indication of the type of direction the government has taken in relation to important agricultural issues.
How important is agriculture to Canada and the world? It is interesting to note that for one hundred years or better the economic power structure of the world has been controlled by the manufacturing sector which operates in Toronto, Montreal, eastern Canada and also places like London, England, Paris, Tokyo and so forth. This sector has controlled the economy of the world. Along came OPEC. I see someone frowning and wondering how relevant this is. It is very relevant because it affects the existence of the farmer. What happened? Along came OPEC, and the economic control of the world switched to the production of energy in certain parts of the world. In Canada that part happens to be western Canada, and central Canada does not like that at all.
The next thing which will happen in the world is that there will be some emphasis put on the production of food-wheat- which is what we are talking about here. If we in this House or the government take the attitude toward the production of wheat that has been taken in this House in the past year-in the short time I have been in the House-and toward agriculture and farmers generally, it will be a sorry day for Canada and a sorry day for the world.

July 6, 1981
Two-Price Wheat Act
We must allow the farmer in western Canada to make his contribution to this great country. This is a great country. We have many things. We have energy. We have manufacturing here in eastern Canada. We in the west need eastern cars, steel and rubber, and we can work together. We in western Canada are good Canadians. All we are asking is that we be given a fair chance. We are not asking for two oil prices, one domestic and one for the international marketplace. We do not want a domestic price for wheat and another price for the export market which is $2 or $3 higher. We want a fair price. Let us not put a limit of $7 on wheat when the price could go to $10. Let us be fair. The western farmer will produce wheat and the industrial area of Canada will produce cars and steel. The energy sector of Canada will start producing oil again, as it has not been doing for a year and a half because of the policies of this government. We can build the strongest country in all the world, and that country is Canada.


Mr. Bockstael:: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) if he would consider answering a question.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Yes.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Is the hon. member for Assiniboia aware that the Two-Price Wheat Act we are addressing in Bill S-6 came to its termination on July 31, 1980? This is a clean-up bill. When the minister of transport in the preceding government, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), introduced Bill C-7, he was doing the same thing we are. We introduced Bill S-6 in the Senate. It was passed. In April, 1980 it was brought to this House and should have been read the third time in June of 1980, but it was not. We are bringing it forward to do away with a bookkeeping requirement.
The Two-Price Wheat Act was instituted in 1973 for seven years, automatically to expire in 1980. Is the hon. member aware of that, and does he concur?


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I think the whole country is aware that the books around here are in some difficulty. We are aghast that this kind of action has not come before the House sooner than it has. The general principle is what I am referring to here, a principle to which I am opposed.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this amendment to the original Two-Price Wheat Act. Last Friday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in his opening remarks indicated that this is the fourth time Bill S-6 has come before this House in its present state. He reminded us of that and that the last debate took place almost exactly one year ago. I think it would be a year ago tomorrow. The most obvious and succinct comment which now seems appropriate is that the bill itself is now 15 months out of date since its first reading, which actually took place on April 16, 1980.
At the time of those earlier debates there was general agreement that wheat producers were locked into what has been termed by others a frozen seven-year contract under the
original terms of the act and, further, that the two-price wheat system has been a subsidy to consumers at the expense of producers. I think that is now widely accepted by all concerned. That subsidy favours the consumer because of the rapid increase in farm production costs associated with our record rate of inflation and I suggest there has been a disproportionate increase in farm capital and operating costs as compared with other sectors in our society with respect to how inflation affects them.
I do not think there is any doubt that farmers are taking the brunt of inflation more so than other sectors, although the whole economy is certainly involved. This situation has increased the imbalance of this subsidy in favour of consumers at the expense of the wheat producers.
Here are just a few examples of how this is reacting today. Fuel costs at the farm level have now more than doubled. Commercial fertilizer costs have increased in direct ratio to those for the oil and natural gas which are used to produce most commercial fertilizers. In some instances insufficient amounts of fertilizer were used this spring simply because of the inability of well-established farmers to finance those very high costs for fertilizer. The very high land and machinery costs with 20 per cent and sometimes higher interest rates, with no sign of let-up, are perhaps the most critical and crucial cost factors which are today precipitating bank foreclosures and bankruptcies at alarming rates. Wheat producers must get a more equitable share of this subsidy.
I would like now to make a comment about the general conditions of grain production, crop prospects and, even more than that, general growth, including grass and hay in western Canada, because I think this is very important as we head into the hot weather part of the summer, rapid growth, the heading out of our crops, haying and so on. I am sure hon. members in this House will recall my personal concerns early last spring and again a year ago last spring, in 1980, when I was genuinely concerned about what to me was the potential for very serious drought throughout western Canada, especially on the western prairies. I spoke in this House, in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and in the Standing Committee on Regional Development about the PFRA and about these concerns. They were very real indeed because there was a potential for drought following two successive winter droughts where the whole of the western prairies had a very low snowfall. As a consequence there was a very poor to nil snow run-off. In the spring of 1980 and the spring of 1981, over a vast area, there was no run-off to supply soil moisture not only for growth but also for livestock watering purposes, and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of small flood schemes used to produce feed for livestock.
I would say that today all the earlier concern and pessimism, certainly on my part, is gone thanks to generous rains over the last six weeks in most of the prairie provinces. In just six weeks the situation has corrected itself to where we now have a rather fantastic turnaround in total growth across the prairies
July 6, 1981

and the possibility of still further growth in production is there.
Last Saturday 1 drove the 160 miles from where I live at Walsh, on the Saskatchewan border, to west of Warner, which is in southwestern Alberta. In fact, I drove pretty well across the southern part of Alberta, ending up in the vicinity of what is known as the Milk River ridge. This is beautiful country with a high ridge which is noted for the quality and high production of grass and hay. As a result we have the wonderful cattle and horse ranches which have their headquarters there. I would say without hesitation that the present growth of prairie grass over the whole area, indeed over a much wider area, is the best I have seen since 1953. At that time we had a wonderful rain which coincided with the coronation of the present Queen. It lasted for several days and is still known as the coronation rain. Well, the growth conditions we now have equal or exceed those conditions back in 1953.
I would say many varieties of native grasses are two feet tall and already setting seed. They are high enough to completely hide young calves walking through it. Hay supplies, in spite of the lack of spring run-off, will be adequate. Cereal grain production possibilities are equally good with many fields now fully headed out, and that is spring seeding. The potential for cereal grain production as well as the grasses I mentioned is enormous. Naturally, it is a long way from being in the bin but there is a potential for an enormous grain crop throughout the western prairies. There is one area I am told still on the dry side. That is around Lloydminster, along the Saskatchewan-Alberta border. There may also be an area from Moose Jaw south to the Montana border that is equally dry. However, it is my understanding that those areas are now getting rain.
For those of us in Alberta who are becoming accustomed to the change, it is interesting to speculate that the production of barley in Alberta may be at an all time high. That, of course, will lead to the potential for feeding more livestock, notably cattle and hogs, in our various feed lots, and to the export of more barley.
That brings up the whole question of what the initial prices will be when the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board gets together with his advisers and makes the initial announcement. That will have a tremendous amount to do with whether or not barley production in Alberta, combined with a good price, will allow the feed industry to end almost a full year of losses. The supply of barley will be there; it remains to be seen whether the price will be high enough to make it worthwhile for the farmers and the feed industry.
I mention these western grain details to indicate the importance of the initial price, which I think should have been announced long before now. I hope the minister will see fit to bring it forward. Those initial prices for all grains will have to be significantly higher to counter the increased costs I have already commented on.
I want now to come to another aspect, Mr. Speaker. I think all western farmers, no matter what they produce, are concerned that this amendment is simply a device for the government to get out of that $200 million contract, if you like,
Two-Price Wheat Act
which was promised in the original seven-year proposal that the former minister, the Hon. Otto Lang, brought in. I think there is a distrust among the prairie farmers as to whether the government will live up to its commitments. We had a good example of that over the winter, in fact early this spring, some of which is still with us, over the manner in which the government administered the drought program. I am thinking particularly about the herd maintenance program. While the concept was noble and most appropriate, the manner in which it was administered left much to be desired.
I want to have on the record what the situation is today. I suggest that the review board, created late in the day, if you like, to try and iron out some of these administrative inequities, is hopefully going to do just that by its decisions. My understanding is that the review board, just before being disbanded as being no longer required by the responsible ministers, had indicated some 3,600 unsatisfied claims for herd maintenance payments which they split into four categories. Categories one and two were the most extreme and covered cattle producers most severely hit. Categories three and four were those with a smaller percentage of cattle in their operations and a larger percentage of grain. It is my understanding there were as many as 3,000 producers in categories one and two.
Now, when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) set up this review board, he gave a commitment on behalf of the government that individuals who felt they were not being fairly dealt with would be able to have their cases brought before the review board. Failing that, the minister would respond personally to them. I suggest that there is at least 2,500 to 3,000 cases where the government has made a commitment to stand behind its promise in the drought program. There is no question that there is a carryover of money available to do this, but no action has yet been taken.
Primarily I want to zero in on a small area on the Alberta side. Generally it is the area on the south side of the Cypress Hills. It is right on the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary. It is approximately five or six ranges wide and about eight or nine townships running north from the Montana border to almost the top of the Cypress Hills. This area was every bit as seriously hit by the drought last summer and last winter, as well as the previous summer and winter, as any area in the west but it was not recognized under the program.
I must say quite candidly that it now appears the reason the area was not recognized was that perhaps it had the misfortune under the program to be on the Alberta side. It is the only reason I can see that the area was not recognized under the program. It is a tragedy in the way a program can be administered.
The Minister of Agriculture is aware of this. I hope there is still time to do something about it. The people in the area are widely scattered-there are not too many-but they have been required to finance enormous bills in order to purchase feed to get them through the last two winters. Indeed they are worthy

July 6, 1981
Two-Price Wheat Act
of some consideration, in light of the firm commitment of the Government of Canada to do something about the emergency drought situation.
Before concluding my remarks I want to make one more point. I have enlarged upon the total potential for a great quantity of grain in the west. It will pinpoint more than ever before the need for the federal government and various feed grain and agricultural groups in western Canada to make a genuine effort to get together and try to reach a compromise solution of the Crow freight rate dilemma. There is no doubt that there is widespread support for some changes across the western prairies. There seems to be stronger support in the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba, but even in the province of Saskatchewan-I live very close to that province and I winter a lot of my cattle there, so I keep in touch-there is the beginning of a consensus as to how to resolve who receives the Crow benefit, that is, the difference between the actual amount of the Crow freight rates and the compensatory rates, or the necessary rates for the railways to move the grain and make a reasonable profit. There is widespread agreement that the railways must be much better compensated, but there is no agreement as to what system should be used, how much, or how it is to be paid out.
The western agricultural conference group proposed that the Crow benefit be paid directly to the railways. The commodity coalition group, the users of mostly feed grains in cattle or hog production and the processors of rapeseed, made a proposal that the difference between the two levels of compensation to the railways should be paid directly to farmers or producers on an acreage basis. It would remove the need to identify grain, multiplying it by a per bushel price.
There is evidence that those two groups are getting closer to reaching compromise. The federal government might very well encourage that compromise. They should get together in order to resolve this situation. There will be record grain volumes to move. We think we are making headway with new hopper cars, but they will not begin to move the expected increase in grain production in the prairies. If the commodity groups do not have a sense of satisfaction that their case in the Crow rate issue is understood, we will lose an opportunity all over western Canada to come up with the best market possible for the barley which is being grown out there right now. Of course, the best market is on the farm next door to where it is produced or on the same farm; there is no doubt about that.
Throughout this year barley was fed to hogs and cattle, and cattlemen ended up losing $100 per head for every fat steer. This did not happen throughout the entire year but it did occur. Hog producers are only now beginning to do a little better. If the secondary industry which creates much of the labour in spin-off industries such as the packing plants does not feel it is worth its while, the grain transportation authority will have to move the extra barley, or a substantial part of it, into the export market. If it is looked upon in that light, it is only common sense and good business to come to a compromise on the Crow issue. I am sure a compromise can be reached by those two major western groups.
I know Mr. Speaker may feel that I have wandered slightly from the subject of the Two-Price Wheat Act, but it was appropriate to make comments about the crop prospects in western Canada since they have turned around so dramatically and to relate that to the entire question of the Crow rate dilemma which is of major concern to us all.
While we appear to have resolved the grain car situation through the construction of hopper cars which are paid for either by the grain producers, through the Canadian Wheat Board, or by the taxpayers of Canada, there is a disturbing situation on the railways with respect to special livestock cars which are rapidly becoming obsolete. It seems that both railways have a mathematical formula whereby after so many years stock cars officially become obsolete. They are not being replaced at this time. The railways indicate quite bluntly that it is not worth their while. This is not because of the Crow rate subsidy. The owners of all livestock carried by rail pay the full shot. There is no subsidized freight rate for livestock, but the railways feel it is not worth their while to continue to pay for new cars to replace the obsolete ones. The livestock industry is very concerned about this situation. It is part and parcel of the uneasiness in western Canadian agriculture which some positive action by the federal government could do much to alleviate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Ethier):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy)-Aviation Industry- Manpower training-Negotiations between governments and industry; the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields)- Energy-Negotiations to conclude energy agreement with provinces; the hon. member for Hamilton West(Mr. Hudecki)- Hazardous substances-Dangers of use of marijuana.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill S-6, to amend the Two-Price Wheat Act, be
July 6, 1981
[Stage Direction]
read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that happens in the House of Commons from time to time is that a person is moved to make an address on the basis of an intervention made by another member. I must say that while 1 thought of speaking on this particular bill since it is a matter of some considerable interest and importance to the people in my riding, and to people generally, in the designated Wheat Board area in western Canada in particular, I cannot help but start my remarks by making reference to the wholly unexplained and inexplicable intervention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). Here is a man who, as far as 1 know, has never spoken on an agricultural bill before, yet he felt inclined to stand up and make an intervention. I can understand why he would feel this way and the sense of frustration he must feel.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has nothing else to do.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is right, he has nothing else to do. He has been left completely out of the postal strike negotiations and deliberations. He is being shunned by his cabinet colleagues with respect to this very serious problem which faces our country today. The man is frustrated. He had to get up and make an outburst against those of us from western Canada who are attempting to bring to the attention of the House some of the serious concerns that agricultural area has about the lack of policy and direction which this government has unfortunately undertaken with respect to that very important part of our country. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the Postmaster General has frustrations about the fact that he is ineffectual within his own cabinet and with respect to his own responsibilities, then he should not take it out on the western Canadian farmer. Nor should he attempt to criticize anyone who stands up and speaks on behalf of western farmers, which we in this party intend to do without any help from the Postmaster General, thank you very much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is probably appropriate that the minister made the remark which he did. Again, it reminds me of the contents of the Speech from the Throne. Many members will have forgotten that we did have a Speech from the Throne. It has been well over a year, almost a year and a half, I believe, since it was delivered at the beginning of the session.


Pierre Bussières: Deal with the subject matter of the bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) will understand the clear logic of what I am about to say, if he would listen for just a moment.


John Leslie Evans: Nothing you say has any logic.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), who is known as a twin for a constituency adjacent to mine, should listen if he wants to do anything for the rest of
Two-Price Wheat Act
Canada in his capacity as the twin member for Saskatoon East. Perhaps he can think about people in western Canada and some of their concerns.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to speak when members opposite are barracking and shouting and I am trying to make a serious speech on behalf of the people I represent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, members opposite will not even allow me to refer to that ancient document, the Speech from the Throne, which has been before us for 18 months. What did that Speech from the Throne point out? Among other things, at the very end of it there was a passing reference to some of the problems which face the government with respect to its representation in western Canada. In that document there was a request made to members of the opposition that at every opportunity we should bring to the government's attention the concerns, grievances, hopes and aspirations of the people of western Canada. The bill before us allows us the opportunity to point out in very vivid and specific terms some of the problems which face the western farmer at a time of unprecedented inflation and at a time when interest rates are punishing the western farmer as he has never been punished before.
In effect, we are talking about the western farmer subsidizing the consumers of Canada with respect to the price of wheat which is grown in western Canada, which is where this bill will have its greatest impact. The price of grain is a matter of ongoing concern to western Canadians and to farmers. This bill shows the kind of disinterest which this government has toward western Canada. When that is combined with the lack of action of this government and with other unconscionable delays which have taken place in terms of payments to which western farmers are entitled, there can be no doubt of this government's disinterest. We had to wait until the last few days for a statement from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) with respect to payment of the Soviet grain embargo compensation. By the time the government found it within its priorities to make that announcement, the amount of back payment had been substantially depreciated by the ravages of inflation and the loss of interest to the farmer on this money. Quite frankly, western farmers looked at that payment with the utmost skepticism.
Simply put, this bill is also an indication of the kind of treatment that western farmers receive at the hands of this government. There are a number of opportunities which members from western Canada have to bring to the attention of the government certain improvements which could take place in terms of its legislation. We intend to take advantage of those opportunities and to meet that challenge. The point is, not only do we have that responsibility, which we will carry out, but we have been called upon by the government in its Speech from

July 6, 1981
Two-Price Wheat Act
the Throne to articulate the points of view of western Canadians.
Hopefully, the government will take some of these suggestions into consideration. There have been a number of agriculture programs introduced by the Liberal government regarding which we have made suggestions. The western grain stabilization program is one, which was brought in by the then minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Otto Lang. We suggested a number of ways in which that particular program might be improved so that there would be, in effect, some benefit derived by western farmers. Those suggestions were rejected out of hand by the Liberal government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair regrets to interrupt the hon. member, but I have been listening quite attentively to the hon. member and he referred to an invitation given by the Prime Minister for western representatives to make contributions to certain legislation. The Chair has a responsibility, as do all hon. members, to address their remarks precisely to the bill which is before us, that is, Bill S-6. 1 would invite the hon. member to do just that and not to address himself to the invitation of the Prime Minister.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you have made that point. Your Honour will understand that in terms of this particular legislation the relevancy rule is being followed more strictly here than in most debates we have had. The reason I wish to make this point is that it must be looked at in the context of this government's agricultural policies. We cannot isolate this one bill and say that it has absolutely no relevance to anything else which happens in this House. This bill is part of a parcel, the way in which this government views the problems of western Canada. I want to point out why this bill is unacceptable in its present form.
By way of introduction, I would like to deal with the provisions of the bill and my suggestions to improve its working and operation.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: It is the same bill which was introduced under the Conservative government.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to believe that the Liberal party will not allow a member from western Canada to speak without heckling and barracking him. The Liberal party may not have any interest in western Canadian problems, but I will tell Your Honour one thing. I am not going to be heckled down by that group across the way.


Donald W. Munro: Good for you.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The fact of the matter is that the relevance here is 100 per cent. We made some suggestions about how western grain stabilization could be improved. For example, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) suggested that the payments to the western farmers should be made on an individual basis, that there should be individual plans rather than having it apply to the designated
Wheat Board area in western Canada. At the very minimum, we suggested this improvement to the bill. We suggested that we have smaller and more coherent districts so that there would be a triggering of the payments to western farmers; but the government refused to listen. As a result, what happened? Western Canadian farmers have been deprived of any payments under that legislation, because unless there is a complete crop failure across the whole of western Canada, the plan does not go into effect.
This particular legislation is another example of the way in which the western farmer is again asked to reduce his income; because he has been asked, by the provisions of this bill, to subsidize the consumer in Canada with respect to the price of wheat consumed domestically.
My colleague the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) brought forward some of the concerns we had about the herd maintenance program. I will not get into that; Your Honour listened to the hon. member for Medicine Hat make a very excellent presentation indeed about that particular program. However, things are so bad now with the Liberal government respecting this particular program which, as my colleague pointed out, has a minimum of some 3,600 unsatisfied claims before the review board, that now when I write to the Minister of Agriculture, who is holding himself out as some kind of spokesman in the House of Commons for western Canadian farmers, he is now saying that he has nothing further to do with the western herd maintenance program, and would I please send my objections, my concerns, my complaints and my constituents' complaints to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane). That is what I call backing off from one's responsibilities as a minister of agriculture. That is the attitude the government is taking. It knows that the western farmer is unhappy with the policies of this government.
Now I want to deal with the provisions of the legislation. I want to deal with some specific concerns and complaints that I have about it. Your Honour will remember that the bill which we have before us repeals the Two-Price Wheat Act of 1974. The two-price wheat system has, in fact, established a system intended to run for seven years. At the time the original bill was introduced, our party took a firm stand against the length of that particular provision. I will deal with that particular matter a little later. The parliamentary secretary, who is one of the two western Canadian hon. members, should be interested in finding out how this bill could be improved.
As a matter of fact, at the time, our party moved an amendment to this original legislation to reduce the time and the application of this particular provision from seven years, which is an unconscionably long period of time. At that time it was pointed out that no labour organization or union would agree to commit themselves for a period of seven years. Nowadays the unions will go six months to a year in terms of any contract they may enter into. Yet the western farmer, by virtue of the policy of the Liberal government, is committed to a seven-year term with respect to this whole program.
July 6, 1981

I should point out that that particular amendment on behalf of our party was brought forward by the Hon. Jack Horner, who is known to the government benchers. The fact is that at that time his thinking in terms of policy was clear, before he moved across the way. I compliment the Hon. Jack Horner for a motion that he made on the amendment to this bill. The only answer that I have seen thus far with respect to trying to deal with western problems and concerns, is apparently the candidacy now announced of Jim Coutts, who, of course, was instrumental in bringing Jack Horner across to the Liberal party. We now have someone in the Liberal party with sex appeal. Jim Coutts is now going to speak on behalf of the western farmer. I am very impressed, and I ask Your Honour whether that is the only answer the government has with respect to this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: However, as hon. members will recall, the act provided a $3.25 per bushel floor price and a $5 per bushel ceiling. 1 hope I am not offending the sensibilities of the Liberal members now if I deal with these particular figures.


John Leslie Evans: You read them before in cabinet when you were a minister.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There was a $5 per bushel ceiling for red spring wheat. As far as durum was concerned, it was $5.75 a bushel and $7.50 a bushel on the lower and higher ends. Millers and consumers of grain for human and domestic purposes purchased the wheat at the floor price. Of course, the intention of the original legislation was that the government pay to the Wheat Board the difference between the floor and the world price, up to a maximum of $1.75 per bushel. In other words, $3.25 was the minimum price, and adding $1.75 made $5. I mention that only because when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) was in Vancouver, he paid a bill for $120, added a $20 tip, and totalled that up to $130. I just want to make sure that the Liberals, who are in charge of our financial affairs, understand simple addition. Apparently this was not the case with former ministers of finance.
In the fall of 1978, the government decided to terminate payments under the act. At the same time, a new scheme- that is, $4 minimum and $5 maximum-was introduced through regulations made under the Canadian Wheat Board.
I am pleased to see that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is here because I think it is important for him to participate and be in the House at all times when bills relating to Wheat Board problems and questions are debated on the floor of the House. One of the difficulties we have, of course, as the minister knows, is that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is not a member of this chamber. It makes it very difficult when the minister involved is not here to participate in the debate and answer questions and to have input from western Canadian members.
We have an assistant minister who has other responsibilities. I am glad that he is here to participate, and I welcome him to the chamber. I appreciate the fact that he is here, because I
Two-Price Wheat Act
am going to make some suggestions to him and make observations with respect to this legislation. I know that he will, in fact, being a reasonable man, listen to and take heed of all of these suggestions.
In any event, the bill in question has the effect of retroactively extinguishing the government's obligations to make payments under the Two-Price Wheat Act after 1978. I know that Your Honour will be glad to hear this as well, because you are following this debate with some attention. However, I want to say at this point in the debate that the history and mechanics of the two-price system have certainly been well canvassed by my colleagues, and I do not suppose there is any purpose in reviewing them again.
Suffice it to say that Bill S-6 would change the termination date of the two-price system, as established by the 1974 act, from July 31, 1980 to December 31, 1978. This bill would have the effect of relieving the government of some $200 million in subsidy payments. It consists of only one page in both official languages. It is certainly a short bill, but it opens the door to some very important and interesting issues.
The first issue I want to raise today is to consider this government's practices in dealing with the two-price system. The government practice has been that followed in the two-price program. The way in which it has approached this program has been the ultimate in arrogance and disdain for Parliament. The statutory terms of the 1974 Two-Price Wheat Act were unilaterally sabotaged by the government in 1978. The government did not come to Parliament but proceeded to act illegally and on its own initiative.


Jean-Luc Pepin: And you introduced the same bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That, alone, is reason enough to oppose the bill. Hon. members keep repeating the fact that we, in government, had to come in and try to remedy the abuse of Parliament on the part of the predecessor government. We tried to do that in a short period of time. I must tell the minister that we were eminently successful in terms of our responsibility to the western farmer, and I am very proud of our record in that regard. It might be evidenced by the fact that we did not do too badly electorally from that part of Canada. There was an appreciation of the fact that we were serious about western Canada. We intend to serve our constituents in that area.
The second point I think should be made with respect to this bill is that there are deficiencies in the two-price system. The key problem with our two-price system is that, in the final analysis, the way it has operated over the course of the last seven years is such that it has become a burden on the producer. Because of its locked-in maximum price, the two-price system has been a de facto subsidization of the consumer by the producer. I do not think that even members of the government would deny that. It is one of the great deficiencies in the plan introduced by the Liberal government in 1974.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You have not read what I said.

July 6, 1981
Two-Price Wheat Act


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That act was introduced over the objections of members of the Progressive Conservative party. One of our fundamental complaints was that it established this regime for seven years. It has been pointed out on a number of occasions that agreements of the length are almost, by definition, unworkable. The minister would understand that. It is a very long time for any agreement, whether it be a labour relations agreement or one respecting western farmers.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It kept changing all through the seven years.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I want to tell the minister that no labour union would ever accept a seven-year non-adjustable agreement.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It was adjusted four times.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The minister keeps talking about adjustment. What we are talking about now is legislation that would legalize something that was done illegally in 1978 by the Liberal government. By what kind of logic would the minister suggest that adjustments have been made when the bill provided no opportunity for such adjustments? There was no provision in the legislation for an adjustment over and above the price which was subsequently changed because of enormous pressure put on the Liberal government in 1978 as the result of the world price for grain. The Liberal government acted then without consulting Parliament. It acted illegally and that is the whole thrust of my argument. This is a critical problem in the present environment.
From 1973 to 1979, including the second quarter, the index of crop production expenses rose by 105.5 per cent; the cost of agricultural chemicals increased by 168 per cent; and the cost of fertilizer rose by roughly 120 per cent. You look surprised and horrified at these figures, Mr. Speaker, but this is the case. A system which fails to recognize such changes in production costs is clearly deficient. A lack of responsiveness to changing conditions creates subsidy effects that are unintended and undesirable.
For example, during the first four months of the 1979-80 crop year, the grain price in the international market was above the maximum level provided by the two-price system. The result was that grain growers, in western Canada primarily, provided a subsidy of about $1 million per week. This is unfair and is totally unacceptable. It is a system that would not be tolerated in any other context, but the government does not seem inclined to take it seriously or to remedy it, except through periodic and understandable outbursts from the Postmaster General. For the first time in his career he had spoken on an agricultural bill, even though it was under the guise of a point of order.
Even though the world price has often been as much as S2 per bushel higher than the $5 maximum established in 1973, the government did nothing for years. The record is clear on that. Only recently has it seen fit to announce a modified price range based on a $5 per bushel minimum and a $7 per bushel maximum for spring wheat.
This adjustment does not address the basic problem about which I have been speaking. There must be a provision for regular adjustments in price, otherwise production costs and fluctuating world prices will create, and it is likely to be sooner than later, the same type of distortions and problems that arose under the pricing regime that endured from 1973 until just recently.
Since the beginning of this government's mandate it has sat inert and watched wheat producers lose $50 million. We have talked about compensation for losses sustained by grain farmers, but the compensation announced by the minister in the other place responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board amounted to some $68 million. This is roughly the same amount that farmers lost in subsidies before the government made any move. Are the western farmers now supposed to stand up and cheer because they get this $68 million after a year and a half and after inflation has substantially depreciated the amount? They are not going to cheer, Mr. Speaker; they are going to ask what the government is doing on their behalf.
There is no assurance that this same government complacency will not create similar problems as prices shift in the future. There is absolutely no assurance from the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board that the government has any plan to deal with such price fluctuations in the future. There is every likelihood that producers will continue to subsidize consumers. This very day we are looking at prices which are just a few cents below the new ceiling.
The new pricing regime is interesting because it provides no ceiling price for durum wheat. The rationale for the difference between the price-setting policy for hard wheat and durum escapes me. Why should the sky be the limit for one grain and a $7 ceiling be imposed on the other? The same principle should apply to both. There is much to recommend the system that is in place for durum. The lack of a ceiling means, obviously, that rising world prices will not bump through the ceiling while the government is asleep.
That is something that should be considered because there is no plan now for the government to make further adjustments. The western farmer simply has to wait on the pleasure of the government to increase the maximum price and enhance the subsidy on domestically consumed wheat. On the basis of past experience we have no reason to believe that the government will move quickly. Economic conditions and concern about the government's deficit position do not bring the western farmer much hope of priority treatment with respect to this payment. It will be easy for the government not to make an adjustment until some time in the future.
People in Saskatchewan may say that Senator Argue did this and did that, but they also say, "We did not elect Senator Argue. How can he be the one to represent our political interest in a democratic society?" Senator Argue may do this and may do that, but we want to see some action by elected representatives and not have to refer to someone in the other place who cannot answer in this House, who does not participate in our debates and who has been rejected electorally by
July 6, 1981

the people of Saskatchewan. Mr. Speaker, they want to hear elected members of cabinet defend their actions and tell them what is happening.
It is difficult to speak over the hubbub on the other side, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to be non-partisan and rational in my presentation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is a very serious problem but members on the other side treat it lightly, and why should they not? It is a problem that affects the hinterlands of western Canada. I suppose at vacation time some may hitch up a trailer and drive as quickly as they can through the wheat growing area of western Canada to the mountains. I hope they will listen and try to gain some understanding of what I hope is a very serious presentation.
1 have made the point, Mr. Speaker, that the major subsidies that we have seen going from the producer to the consumer in the last several years would not occur if my suggestion were adopted and there was a uniform application of the rule with respect to all types of wheat. The maximum price should be removed. This, then, becomes a legitimate subsidy to protect the consumer. The situation which has occurred in the past and which is going to occur again in the future as surely as I stand here, where the producer subsidizes the consumer, will be prevented.
We need a viable agricultural industry in our society. That is absolutely essential. Anything that tends to depreciate from that fundamental position I absolutely oppose. I do not believe the two-price system should include a feature that has the effect of forcing producers to subsidize consumers directly. If we as a country decide that grain prices should be subsidized, then the general public should bear the burden of the subsidy. It should not be shouldered only by the producers in one part of the country.
A ceiling price which has no provision for regular adjustment will create such subsidy effects. The government has demonstrated that it cannot react quickly enough to prevent this from happening. Therefore, I submit in all seriousness that there is much to recommend the notion of a no ceiling price. A ceiling price could only be defended if it was linked to a floor price that reflected real costs of production. This is important, and it is one of the reasons the government had to move with respect to a floor price.
Even now, in terms of the costs involved in agricultural production, how can anyone in this House talk about the floor price now in existence as being sufficient to cover the costs of production as far as western farmers are concerned? In that situation I think producers could expect help when prices fell below reasonable levels. And, in return, they would expect to see the top taken off their grain prices in times of high prices. There would be a stabilizing effect whereby both consumers and producers would benefit from time to time.
Two-Price Wheat Act
Under the present system we do not have a floor price that reflects costs of production. Our government had plans to establish a $6 per bushel minimum price.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Why didn't you?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Liberal party, of which the minister is a member, in conjunction with the NDP, in their hurry to work in unison, together as a team, as they have, voted us out of office. I cannot help that and I am sorry that it happened. But we had an opportunity and we would have taken advantage of it by implementing a reasonable increase in the floor price. I think it is a reasonable increase relative to production cost changes of 85 per cent over the 1974 price of $3.75 a bushel.
The present low floor price means that the sword only cuts one way. Producers lose as prices break through the ceiling level, but they never win. The wheat farmer never wins because the floor price is simply too low.
I think I have made some sensible suggestions and recommendations with respect to this legislation. I make a non-partisan appeal to the government to become serious with respect to some of the situations facing western Canadians, western farmers in particular and farmers generally.


Ian Deans: What are you doing?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I guess I am giving some free advice to the government party about what might be done in terms of increasing support for the government party in areas in which they are not now represented. I think that if we can move the government one inch on the road to being more sensitive to western-


Ian Deans: Why are you saying that?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is a difference. If I were a member of the Liberal caucus, I would speak like you do. But the way it is now, I am in opposition. I am trying to be non-partisan and 1 am trying to give some advice.
Many suggestions have been made by the New Democratic Party concerning proportional representation, that this is going to be the solution in western Canada, that this somehow will bring a few more Liberal members into the fold, allowing them to articulate western grievances. This was supported by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), I am sure, but unfortunately it was rejected by the membership of his party. However, his leader is a proponent of proportional representation. This is his solution to regional disparity and regional representation.
All I am saying to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain and to members of the government party is that they will not be judged by window dressing kinds of proposals, such as proportional representation or any such scheme. The Minister of Transport in his report was very keen on this particular proposal. I respect him, but I take serious issue with him and 1 have some serious questions about that plan. Every once in a while 1 think I could quote one of the members of the Liberal

July 6, 1981
Two-Price Wheat Act
party from western Canada who had some advice for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) after the last election. That advice applies to this legislation.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) took a highly publicized tour of western Canada. He toured all the villages, the burghs, the farms and the cities of western Canada and came back with a kind of manifesto for the Prime Minister on how to win the west. I thought his conclusion was appropriate and correct, that no amount of high-jinks and jiggery-pokery or some kind of window-dressing proposal for proportional representation would work. The way the government could increase its support and representation would be to demonstrate by its policies that it understands western Canadians' concerns-


An hon. Member:: It is the same bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Unfortunately, the hon. member, whom I respect, has come in late. He is armed by Liberal research and their one heckling line, that it is the same bill as the bill we brought in. That is the Liberal heckling line. I will repeat my earlier response, which was devastating the last time and it will probably cause this hon. member to leave the chamber in embarrassment and humiliation. My response was that we had to take the step to legalize an illegal act of the previous government. We had to take action to correct something that was done illegally and in contempt of Parliament. We had to take action to bring it before Parliament because we in this party believe in Parliament. We do not believe in doing things by order in council or behind the scenes. We try to be up front with the Canadian people.
As I mentioned in my remarks, we intended bringing in an increase in the floor price. I would like to hear a member of the government party tell us that the government will bring in a $6 minimum payment as a beginning. I would also like to hear the Minister of Transport, the parliamentary secretary or whomever the government cares to designate, stand up and tell us about what the government is going to do with respect to the ceiling price, and whether the government will give consideration to the removal of it.
I have spoken briefly on this bill because I feel very strongly about it. The bill is a matter of some interest in my area. It is also typical of the kind of oversight that has occurred in terms of government reaction to some problems that are considered serious in western Canada.
One of the battle cries in western Canada is dissatisfaction with the place of western Canada in confederation. It seems that everything we sell to the rest of Canada is at a price lower than world price. That policy applies not only to wheat but also to oil, as we all know. However, western Canadians pay world price for everything that comes to western Canada. That is the cry that goes up. The feeling of dissatisfaction is felt quite substantially across the west. I say to the government that it should be careful with this legislation, that it should listen to some of the judgments that have been made here.
I do appreciate the opportunity I have been given to speak on this bill. I wanted to tell the government how strongly I felt about what it is trying to do here.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address a few remarks to Bill S-6. This is the third time this bill has been introduced. It was introduced first by the previous Liberal administration as Bill C-24, secondly by the PC government as Bill C-7, and thirdly now in the form we see today.
It is interesting to note that the combined Liberal-NDP coalition was in a hurry to bring down the PC government, giving absolutely no thought to the Two-Price Wheat Act at that time. I might say they did not give it even passing interest. That was the coalition of the Liberals and the NDP.
Now the Liberals want to bring this act before us for debate and get it through before the recess. Why is this? Is it because of the magnanimous concern of the Liberal government for the prairie wheat farmer? Is it because of concern for the consumers of Canada? Not quite. It is so that the government can save its own skin. The government will be in trouble if this bill is not passed and the act repealed. The Liberal government would have to pay the producers of western Canada $200 million.
When the Hon. Otto Lang introduced the bill in this House in 1974, he proclaimed, and I quote from page 864 of Hansard for October 29, 1974:
This is a bill whose specific purpose is to enshrine for a period of years, in this case for seven years, a procedure whereby the treasury supplements payments made for wheat designed for human consumption in Canada ... It is in its present form without any doubt and, 1 should think without any argument, in the nature of a consumer subsidy, an amount paid by the treasury, on behalf of the people of Canada as taxpayers, to lighten the burden on the consumer of the cost of wheat products in Canada.
On the passage of that bill the producers in western Canada were locked into a seven-year contract. It was violently opposed by the then Conservative opposition. On May 6, 1975, at page 5538 of Hansard the Hon. Jack Horner said:
This bill locks the wheat producer into a seven-year agreement. 1 cannot overemphasize that. Everyone in this House has witnessed several labour negotiations. I can recite the railway negotiations, the longshoremen on the west coast, grain handlers and longshoremen on the St. Lawrence, and so on. None of them relate to a seven year contract.. . What has this parliament got against wheat producers? Why lock them into a fixed price for their commodity?
I do not hear any comments from the little red rump to my left.


Ian Deans: That's because nobody is listening to you.


Jack Wendele Shields: They should listen. The liberal government did not stick to its commitment of seven years. On November 30, 1978 it decided to terminate the subsidy payment. Instead of the fixed domestic price and subsidy payments, the Canadian Wheat Board regulations were amended to provide that wheat for domestic use would be priced between $4 and $5 a bushel, and durum for domestic use would be priced between $4 and $7.50 a bushel. The bill before us advances the termination
July 6, 1981

date to November 30, 1978, rather than July 1980, which should be the case. The government is obligated to pay the producers that money. The government says that since December 1, 1978, that money has been received directly from the market place. The government owes the western producers $200 million. If it backdates the legislation, it will get out of that commitment.
What effect has the two-price wheat system had? Let us look for a moment at the transfer of income under the two-price wheat program from 1969 to 1978. There has been a direct transfer from the taxpayers to the consumers of $396 million, from the taxpayer to the producer of $75 million, from the consumer to the producer of $40 million, and from the producer to the consumer of $35 million. In addition, in the first four months of the 1979-80 crop year the producers have subsidized Canadian consumers by an estimated $22 million.
It is the same old story-call on the western producer to subsidize. It has cost the western producer at least $22 million in the 1979-80 crop year. Since the summer of 1979, the producers have subsidized consumers to the extent of $1 million a week. When is this Liberal government attitude of calling on western producers to subsidize going to stop?
When the Two-Price Wheat Act was brought in, the Conservative opposition asked the government to bring in an indexing provision to reflect the cost of production. Otto Lang said at that time that the legislation was adequate. At the time the legislation was brought in a bushel of wheat was in the $6 range. A bushel of No. 1CW red spring, Vancouver, is in the $6 range today. I quote from page 864 of Hansard for October 29, 1974:
-levels which are still to this day pretty well close to a record, we decided that we should look at the proposition that as between the Canadian Wheat Board on the one hand, and other producers of wheat in Canada, and the consumers of Canada as represented by the buyers, millers and other users, we should enter into an arrangement whereby there would be a range of prices for grain, for wheat used for human consumption, a range which reflected more adequately than anything before that the cost of production to producers.
That was said by the then minister, Otto Lang. Let us look for a moment at what the special adviser to the minister of state in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, Ralph Goodale, said during the debate. At that time he was the member of Parliament for Assiniboia. I quote from page 890 of Hansard for October 30, 1974:
It has been argued that this legislation should reflect specifically costs of production. I think that kind of suggestion is somewhat inappropriate in a discussion on a two-price system for wheat.
1 ask hon. members to remember this government's commitment to an over-all western grains income stabilization program.
The Western Grain Stabilization Act was implemented in 1976. The act provided that a review of its impact upon farmers be undertaken after the first three years of the act's coming into effect. There was to be a review undertaken after three years, and it was to be tabled in Parliament so that it could be discussed. No such review has been tabled. The same former member and now special adviser, Mr. Goodale, also
Two-Price Wheat Act
said in 1974-and I refer again to Hansard for October 30, 1974, at page 890-the following:
If conditions change drastically, as well they may, between now and 1980, if there is a downturn in the grain market-as grain producers of western Canada realize might happen-the figure provided for in the bill can be changed by this House to keep it in line with real circumstances.
At no time since the Two-Price Wheat Act was passed have members of Parliament been allowed to debate or legislate. Even now there is no consultation. The advisory board to the Canadian Wheat Board was not even consulted.
Again in the 1974 debate the Liberals were warned by the opposition either to include an indexing provision for the cost of production or, as an alternative, to shorten the frozen seven-year period from 1974 to 1977. A friend and colleague of mine and the former minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), said in October, 1979, as recorded at page 865 of Hansard:
-this bill lacks an effective measure to take into consideration the increased costs of production. Therefore we would recommend to the minister the implementation of such a provision to reflect the rising costs of production over the seven year period.
I would like to refer hon. members to a situation which seems to be developing. We constantly hear in this House about how people who have made their home and their living in western Canada feel alienated from their federal government. Here we have a situation once again in which the government is putting a limit on the amount paid for the production of red spring wheat. This is exactly the same as what has been done with respect to the production of oil.
What does it do? I suggest that if a farmer wants to plant wheat on his farm, he has to decide whether to plant bread wheat or durum. I suggest he will opt durum because there is no limit on durum in the marketplace. The market determines what he gets for his produce. However, a misguided policy of this government has put a ceiling on what a farmer will get for the production of spring red. Alberta and Saskatchewan have subsidized the price of oil for the rest of Canada somewhere in the neighbourhood of $40 billion to $45 billion since 1973. That is a tremendous subsidy to the consumers of Canada. For the past seven years, western grain producers have subsidized consumers in the rest of Canada by some $350 million to $400 million. That is directly out of producers' pockets.
We were promised a new policy by this government before the Two-price Wheat Act would be passed in the other place. What did we get from the Minister of Transport's assistant in the other place? We received an announcement that the domestic price of No. 1CW red spring for human consumption would increase the minimum to $5, with a ceiling of $7. This is to be implemented during the next crop year. Forget about this year. It is to be implemented next year. Again the farmer has to wait until next year, maybe. For durum used in the marketplace a minimum was placed, but no ceiling on the upper limit. Again it is effective next crop year. What is the matter with this crop year? Why are we always putting it off? Next year prices will be higher. Farm expenses are not waiting until next year. We are not holding farm expenses in place. There will be more expenses next year. They are increasing

July 6, 1981
Two-Price Wheat Act
this year. All we have to do is to look at the farmer caught in the bind of interest payments and at the cost of fertilizer, which has gone up. The cost of machinery and the cost of labour have gone up. At present the Two-Price Wheat Act does not cover the cost of production.
Let us refer again to what Mr. Goodale, the special adviser to the Minister of Transport, said. What did Mr. Goodale say? He introduced a very wishy-washy amendment which only Otto Lang could accept.
The minister shall, on an annual basis and in consultation with the producers, review the provisions of this Act and all related regulations enacted by the governor in council with a view of making such recommendations to the governor in council as are appropriate in the light of prevailing costs of production of wheat and returns to producers.
Has there been consultation? Not a bit. The government did not even bother to consult with the members of the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board. There was not one bit of consultation. There is a great worry that western Canadians feel alienated. We must make western Canadians feel that they are in the mainstream. There is an advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board, but not one bit of consultation. Instead, ministers traipse through western Canada giving high profile speeches and telling us in western Canada about what a good government they are.


Mr. McDermid:: Full of emptiness.


Jack Wendele Shields: Emptiness and promises. In other words, this new policy still does not adequately reflect the reality of the marketplace. The Two-Price Wheat Act, as it stands now and as it did in 1974, does not reflect it and never has. What have been the consequences from 1973 to the second quarter of 1979? The cost of total farm inputs have increased by a whopping 80.6 per cent. And what does he get for his wheat? Exactly the same as in 1974 because of a misguided government policy to place a maximum on what he can receive. It astounds me when this sort of thing comes to light. Do not be surprised if next year and the year after we cannot meet our commitments on foreign sales because the wheat producer has said: No way, I am not going to produce red spring wheat for human consumption, the bread wheat, the Cadillac of the wheats. Do not be surprised if that producer goes into durum wheats. If a man is going to invest his time, labour and money into planting wheat, it is only logical that he is going to plant durum wheat when he sees there is no maximum, no ceiling on his return and the marketplace will dictate the price.
If the government truly wants to help the farmer, then it should get off his back. If the government truly wants to subsidize the consumer, then it should do it, but not on the back of the farmer. One little act by this government which would clearly indicate to the farmers of western Canada that it understands the problem, that it is willing to modify its stand and remove the maximum for bread wheat, one act like that, could do more for Canadian unity than all its fireworks in Yellowknife and the rest of the country. The farmer would truly believe for once that this government, with virtually no
representation in the west, is finally listening and understanding what the problems are.


John Horton McDermid: They have no representation.


Jack Wendele Shields: I hear from an hon. friend that they have virtually no representation. That is debatable as they do have two representatives from Manitoba somewhere.


An hon. Member:: What about the Conservatives; don't they represent the west?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer that question. Yes, they do, absolutely. That is what we are here for and that is what we are trying to make this insensitive government understand. It is a very moderate request; instead of putting a limit on red spring, I suggest they take it off. Do not put a maximum there so that the farmer is subsidizing the consumer. In fact, it is only the wheat farmer who is subsidizing the consumer.


An hon. Member:: Share the wealth.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I heard one of those yahoos across the way yell out "share the wealth". My God, come to my area and look at the farmer, look at how they are out there grubbing the soil. What is the matter with you? You said, "share the wealth"? That is the most idiotic thing I ever heard. That is the kind of asinine stupidity we get from this Liberal government. They do not understand what the prairie producer is facing. I ask them, I plead with them to think about what was said for a minute. Come to my riding and I will take you to areas where there are farmers, young people trying to break out and plant new land for production so they can feed Canada and the world.
As I said, the cost of total farm inputs increased by over 80 per cent, and the price of wheat remains the same because this government has a maximum on it. Let us look at some of the crops. There has been an increase in the index of crop production costs of 105 per cent since 1973, that is seed, fertilizer and pesticide. You do not just throw the wheat on the ground, Mr. Speaker, hope for rain and see it come up. You have to work at it, you have to use pesticides and fertilizers, you have to clean your seed before you sow it. Since 1973, fertilizers are up 115 per cent, and agricultural chemicals are up 168 per cent. This government has put the producer in jeopardy and it shows insensitivity, callousness and disregard for the needs and objectives of western Canadians, who make up a large segment of our population. Fifty per cent of all employment in western Canada is directly or indirectly related to the farming community. It is still a farming sector.
There are some other areas where the government has been clearly insensitive and on which it has flip-flopped. They want to build a grain terminal at Prince Rupert capable of handling more than 150 million bushels of grain a year. It must be built to meet the commitments we are making to other countries in the world. What is the result? There is no final agreement. Site preparation was to begin this summer. What has happened? It is going to start, maybe, in 1982.
July 6, 1981


An hon. Member:: Take your time.


John Horton McDermid: He is just letting it sink in.


Jack Wendele Shields: 1 am taking my time and hoping it sinks in.


André Ouellet: What a filibuster.


Jack Wendele Shields: No, it is not a filibuster. I am asking hon. members to think for a moment. Let him put himself in the place of the prairie producer. He does not even know what his initial payment is going to be this year. The government has broken with all tradition and not even announced the initial payment, and now we are bringing in a two-price wheat system. Essentially we all agree with it.


André Ouellet: Well, vote on it.


Jack Wendele Shields: However, why put a maximum on it? Yes, it was brought in, in 1973, and all we are trying to do is to save the government from its moral commitment to the producer right now, amounting to a debt of $200 million. That is what this does. Do you backbenchers not even understand what your government is doing? I advise you to read some of the information.
I ask for one thing, Mr. Speaker. I ask the hon. members to consider what I say, and I ask hopefully, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), or someone in his department, to read my remarks. He is not here to hear them, of course, but I ask that we remove the maximum. Why set a maximum? All the government is doing is to put itself in a straitjacket. It does not reflect the cost of production. Let the marketplace determine what the maximum is. Let them admit that what they want to do is to subsidize the consumer. At least let them bring it in openly and honestly and say: What we are going to do is to subsidize the consumer with the taxpayers' dollars. Fine, but let them not do it on the back of the farmer by putting a maximum on what he will receive for red spring. They are going to force that guy to put in other crops, and that will put pressure on the Canadian dollar because if we cannot get enough here, we will have to import it from somewhere else. The idiocy comes across. It is an artificial way of holding down inflation, but it will blow the lid. I ask the government to bring forward an amendment which will eliminate the maximum on No. 1CW red spring wheat.
I thank hon. members, particularly some of those across the way, for listening to what I had to say. It is a genuine concern. If we addressed it in a logical, moderate manner, as I said before, we would be doing more for Canadian unity than all the television advertisements with flying geese or the fireworks, which God knows cost how much across Canada. It would do more for Canadian unity. It would do more to address the feeling of concern of grain producers about the government,
Two-Price Wheat Act


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I will be the last speaker for the Official Opposition with respect to this bill. I want to deal with a number of items rather briefly.
The purpose of the bill is to remove any obligations on the government to make subsidy payments in accordance with the provisions of the Two-Price Wheat Act in light of changes made in the domestic pricing system in December 1978. I would not be surprised at all if this bill were to cause great concern among western farmers because farmers in general are suffering very badly from the costs of inflation. The input costs with respect to agriculture have zoomed dramatically.
I ask hon. members who represent rural ridings, as I do in part, and others who represent urban ridings to consider what has happened to the price of fuel, not only in the last two years but since February 18, 1980 when those farmers were promised that if they voted Liberal, gasoline and fuel prices would stay down. I remind the House and the country that those promises will not be forgotten by those farmers who feel very badly let down. Also they are affected by a government which has decided to use interest rates and to adopt a high interest rate policy. Therefore, the government and its backbenchers ought not to be surprised if hon. members in the House who represent western agricultural interests, given the atmosphere in the country today, speak about something which bears so heavily upon them. As I said at the outset, this is a bill which will ultimately dramatically change the pricing of a very serious part of Canadian agriculture. It is a $200-million obligation which will be picked up by consumers as a result of this matter.
I do not think hon. members should forget that this is a piece of housekeeping legislation which grew out of the marvellous conference in Bonn. A number of things came out of the conference in Bonn in 1978. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) will recall what came out of it, aside from the promises affecting western farmers. The slashing of 5,000 public servants from the public payroll also came out of that conference. On August 1, 1978 in the dead of night, without warning being given to the then President of the Treasury Board about it, an announcement was made that these public servants would be slashed. I get worried about world conferences involving the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or his colleagues around the world. He should remember that.
The issue with respect to this is quite clear. Hon. members who have spoken have said that the price range with respect to the two-price wheat policy is unsatisfactory, that it is not keeping up with the cost of production and that the ranges are too low. As everyone knows, there is no limit on durum but there is a maximum limit of $7 on Canadian red spring wheat. They are really saying to the House that it is unfair to apply a maximum in 1980 or 1981 which was going out of date in 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979. This is the position. It is a clear one and it is important.
I hope members are not saying that this is only a western problem. I think Ontario members should remember that there are 18,000 producers in Ontario who market wheat each year. The annual production involves about 700,000 tonnes-that is

July 6. 1981
Two-Price Wheat Act
the metric system creeping into agriculture-nearly all of which is of the soft white winter wheat variety. When the bill goes to committee, they will not only have to deal with western Canada. They will have to deal with the wheat producers of Ontario who are very much concerned about this system.
Also these producers are very concerned that these changes are taking place at a time when there is no clear grain transportation policy in Canada, despite all the talk of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). 1 do not say this in any unkindly way, but there is no clear policy in Canada. The minister knows, every wheat producer, whether he lives in western Canada or in Ontario, knows, every farmer and every manufacturer who ships anything knows, that the rail system is proving itself gradually more inadequate as cars go out of repair. We are losing approximately 1,800 cars per year, and new ones are not being produced that fast. This is why western farmers, Ontario farmers and others are concerned about the system.
The minister must respond at some stage, probably at committee stage, to the railroads' threat of rationing the rail system. Who are the railway companies anyway? Who runs the railroads of Canada? Are they so independent that they can make their own decisions free of government influence? Does the government have something to say about a system which was put in place to tie the country together and to give it some reason for staying together? Those are the things we want to question in this debate.
From the point of view of western or eastern grain producers, the entire system-the operation of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the deepening of ports, and the capacity of elevators-must be part of a clear transportation policy to serve agriculture, manufacturing and so on. Despite the promises of the 1980 election of action and of renewed vigour, the fact of the matter is that wherever we look there is inaction, there is no vigour, there is no imagination. There is stagnation throughout the country. This is why farmers and members of Parliament have railed against the transportation policies, or lack of them, interest rate and inflation policies of the government. Therefore, it is important that this not be seen as solely a western problem. It is a very major western problem, but what we are talking about in the course of this debate affects grain producers in Ontario and agriculturalists in Quebec. It is evidence of an attitude which must change. Whether we are speaking of agriculture or of anything else, the country is in deep trouble.
Therefore, it is important that this bill get to committee where Ontario wheat producers and everyone who is interested can be heard. May I call it six o'clock, or will Your Honour put the question, if you so wish?


David Michael Collenette: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that perhaps, due to the graciousness of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton we could now put the question.


Walter David Baker: You may put the question.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

Lloyd Axworthy: that Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the presentation of this bill introduces a number of very significant amendments to the Adult Occupational Training Act. But before getting into the actual substance of those proposals, I would like to make one short comment about the present situation we face in relation to training. It has been one of the issues which, over the past year or two, has gradually emerged as one of the important public and private priorities across Canada. Increasingly, members of the business community, trade unions, provincial governments and our own government, have focused on the need to substantially increase the availability of skilled workers in Canada as one of the major solutions we can provide to some of the economic problems that we face in this country. It is for this reason that the amendments being presented tonight, I hope, will commend themselves to hon. members of this House for speedy and quick passage.
These amendments are designed to give us the ability to respond, in a flexible and effective way, to many of the concerns which have been registered by Canadians and to the need to substantially improve and upgrade the availability of highly-skilled workers for our industries across Canada.
It is interesting, if one looks at some of the projections, to note that we are going through some major transformations in the labour markets of Canada. For the last 10, 15 or 20 years, what we have been faced with is an increasing need to respond to an expanding labour force. The large numbers of young people coming into the labour market, as well as the increased participation of women, have given us a very strong and increasingly forceful need to supply any kind of job, almost at any price; but those conditions are now changing. The composition of the labour force is now going through a major change. We must begin to total our resources because we will find that the labour force growth is slowing down while at the same time there are increasing shortages in key sectors of the economy.
July 6, 1981

While the supply of the labour market is changing, the demand is also changing. While service work-work in the areas of public administration, clerical, management, health services, education and others-was the major stimulus for growth in the last two decades, it will increasingly decline as a supplier of jobs in Canada. We will find the slack taken up in the areas of manufacturing and resource trades, which will necessitate a very different set of requirements for skilled workers. Therefore, the emphasis will be on an area which has really been neglected for a long time. There will have to be improvement in our blue collar trades, our higher-skilled trades and our technology trades. We will have to reallocate our resources, our interest and our attention to supplying those skills. That will mean some major changes in many of the vested interests of our society, many of the educational institutions, our apprenticeship programs and many of our industrial programs. It is for this reason that we have brought in these changes to the Adult Occupational Training Act at this time, so that we are able to get a leg up to take some lead initiating those changes.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government must play a major role in helping both workers and employers to adjust to the realities of the present labour market. We must promote the integration of women, native people and disadvantaged workers into a larger field of employment. We must train more workers in skilled trades and occupations. We must help the workers already on the labour market to learn new skills without undue difficulties. I believe that we must now amend the Adult Occupational Training Act and that this will be a first step towards adapting our employment and training policies to the labour market of the 1980s.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: That is from western Canada, Mr. Speaker!
Of course, we recognize the need to look at the report that will be presented shortly, we hope, by the special parliamentary committee that was established last year to examine employment opportunities in this country. We await with great interest the finding in that report as well as the report which I hope to be able to table in this House within a matter of days. Those will give us the larger picture of the entire labour market situation in Canada for the 1980s.
1 hope that the parliamentary committee report and that report from my department will open up a very far-ranging debate and consultation in the entire area of job training, job creation and employment opportunities for this country as we proceed into this new decade.
1 do not think that we can wait for the full deliberations or consultations that will be based on those reports, however. Important as they are and critical as they will be to the major transformations in our policies, we must act now. We cannot afford to lose a day or a week or a year which might impede or
Adult Occupational Training Act, No. 2 restrain the development of new approaches to training. Some hon. members have asked me for the assurance that passage of this legislation will not close the door to further changes in training legislation after the studies have been considered. I am pleased to offer those assurances. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the amendments introduced in debate on second reading are simply the prelude to a much wider range of changes that must take place.
The changes introduced tonight are necessary in order to respond to the very well defined and articulated need expressed to me by employers, by trade unions and by provincial governments. I feel it is important to have the House adopt these measures before we leave so that we can put some of the more obvious changes and innovations in our training programs in place by next fall. That would mean that we would not lose time. There is a critical time gap that we must overcome if we are to meet the shortage of skilled workers in Canada.
None of the changes proposed in this bill will in any way pre-empt the work of the parliamentary task force or the other proposals that we will be debating and consulting upon over the next several months. They will have the desired flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness that will give us a good start.
The bill we are studying today has three basic goals. The first is to simplify the administration of the Adult Occupational Training Act and to eliminate much of the unnecessary paper work that small businessmen in particular must face in developing industrial training on the shop floor.
Second, we want to make the act more flexible so that it will respond to the variety of needs in the training area.
These two sets of proposals were presented in the previous Parliament. The third set is in addition to those. It is based upon the measures introduced last January as part of the industrial assistance program which was designed to deal with communities facing industrial dislocation. The amendments to this act are an essential ingredient to enable us to fully perform all the services to those designated communities under the industrial assistance program.
As far as the specifics of this bill are concerned, I am sure we would all agree that the critical place where training must occur is in the private arena. We must provide as much encouragement and incentive to the private employer to develop on-the-job training as soon as possible.
It is my intention, through these amendments, to make the program more effective and attractive by reducing the paper work burden on employers. For this reason, one of the amendments provides a flat-rate method of reimbursing training costs. This will free employers from keeping detailed records of training expenses. When the payment for each contract can be based on a composite, single rate, a great deal of time and money will be saved. The small employer will not need a legion of accountants or clerical workers to keep records on each worker in the training program but will be able to apply for a training agreement with the department under a flat rate formula.

July 6, 1981
Adult Occupational Training Act, No. 2
The amendment has particular appeal for the small employer, the employer who provides the majority of jobs in this country but until now has not provided a great deal of training. Through this amendment, we hope to provide further incentives to the small businessman and employer in Canada to give on-the-job training.
Employers will also benefit from the change which will allow us to help with the cost of training that is conducted outside Canada. I want to caution hon. members that we would use this particular provision very sparingly. I believe we must develop and enhance our own training facilities, but there are certain skills that can only be acquired abroad. By way of example, Mr. Speaker, just last week I received a letter from the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) who sits on the opposition benches. Ele indicated that one of the oil companies in his city wanted to send six trainees to a program in Houston to develop a specialized skill for the oil industry that is only available in that city. As the act now stands, unfortunately I could not provide direct assistance to that employer for the training program. If the House were so kind as to allow quick passage of this bill, then we would be able to respond quickly to the very fervent appeal of the hon. member for Calgary West. Six new trainees would soon arrive in the wonderful city of Houston to be trained in these new skills.
There are skills that cannot be obtained in this country, Mr. Speaker, and so we need to provide the opportunity for workers to go abroad. We think we can provide support to the private small employer by giving some assistance under the training act to enable that to take place.
One of the most important amendments in this bill extends the period in which we will allow support for training beyond the 52 weeks now contained in the act. We have recognized that as we move into a high technology economy, we must develop high-skill trades. In many instances those skills cannot be acquired within the 52-week period allowed in the present act.
Hon. members know that much of our effort in the past has been concentrated on short-term job entry skills. Now, because of changing economic conditions, we must shift to occupations which require a longer training such as tool and die makers, sheet metal workers, industrial mechanics and machinists. All of these require more than 52 weeks of training.
Again I can speak, by way of example, of a representation made to me two or three weeks ago in the province of Saskatchewan. The native organizations in that province had developed programs of training and management skills for native people so that they could go back to band councils and non-profit corporations and develop management aptitudes to make those programs work. At the present time we cannot provide training beyond the 52-week period. This is another very important program that could go ahead if we could allow the additional time that is required for training. We would use this authority with a great deal of care and caution and obviously would consult with the provinces regarding the credentials and standards required. We would be able to provide for the additional training beyond the 52 weeks. This
would give an incentive to people to develop high-skill trades in Canada.


Walter David Baker: Is it open to municipal corporations?


Lloyd Axworthy: I will come to that.
Another important and complementary amendment would erase the present requirement that people in need of skill training wait one year after leaving high school before they can be referred to institutional training. The amendment would allow a person to go from a high school program directly into an institutional training program. This would give an opportunity to young people in particular, to move directly into high-skill programs. In this context, I want to mention the representation of the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni). The hon. member indicated that perhaps in the next round of amendments we might even consider waiving the rule for those who have not yet reached the high school leaving age but who do want to enter the high school trades. I think it is a useful proposal to consider. 1 am attracted to it and I would welcome further representation. But again it comes back to the basic point that we are not interested here in paper credentials; we are interested in getting people trained. Therefore, we want to eliminate some of the overregulation and some of the kinds of difficulties and handicaps that have been put in the way of people getting access immediately to training programs.
A further important amendment in this area, and one that I personally believe would make a major improvement in our training capacity in Canada, is that this bill, with these amendments, would provide authority to negotiate industrial training contracts with persons or groups other than employers. This will give us the flexibility to make use of additional training expertise or resources.
Up to this time we have been limited either to institutional training places provided by provincial governments or to individual employers or groups of employers. Under this amendment, again subject to provincial standards or rules to make sure that the quality of training is high, we would be able to negotiate with trade unions to provide a training program for their membership. We could negotiate with agencies, such as the non-profit organizations like an Indian organization or a social agency which had the capacity or competence to provide specialized training in those areas.
Again, one of the areas in which we have been conducting much negotiation over the past several months has been with native groups to develop native-based institutions to supply workers for the big megaprojects in western Canada. Our experience demonstrates that through such institutions as the Blue Quill school in Alberta and the Indian training institute in Saskatchewan, natives can provide first-class training for their own resources. This amendment would give us the ability to provide a much broader range of sources of training for
July 6, 1981

Canadians. Therefore, it would give us a multiplication of opportunities and a multiplication of resources.
Here we come back to the issue of flexibility to give us a broader range and more effective response in the training area. Bill C-67 is aimed not only at making our training programs more effective and flexible, it is also aimed at increasing the financial flexibility under the program. Employers are now reimbursed for their trainees' wages at a rate which must not exceed the maximum training allowance set for people enrolled in courses at provincial training institutions. In the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and indeed in other areas of the country such as British Columbia where wages are rapidly increasing, the maximum allowable weekly payment for trainees under the existing act is simply not enough. The bill would give us the ability to increase this payment and aid employers in these high-wages regions who may have to pay more than $500 a week to attract potential trainees.
I have also referred to the changing labour market conditions of the 1980s because it is important to realize the kind of challenges and demands that we will face. One of the most critical challenges to which this government has already devoted a high degree of attention is coping with the impact of sweeping technological change. This will be of particular interest to members from Ontario and Quebec, where major technology adjustments are taking place in some key traditional industries. In line with this thinking, the third goal of the proposed amendments is to enable designated workers and communities to deal more effectively with the consequences of industrial disruption.
We introduced the special industrial adjustment program last January. Within that program are a number of labour adjustment programs: portable wages, assistance for early retirement and employment incentives. The amendments proposed in Bill C-67 will further strengthen our ability to deal with workers in those communities that are affected by industrial change, such as the automobile industry, the textile industry and the shipbuilding industry. They will encourage workers to learn new skills by permitting us to offer training allowances at a period when workers are laid off in these designated industries. One of the unfortunate consequences in an economic downturn is that apprentices and trainees are usually the first fired because of seniority rules and other kinds of regulations which have grown up and evolved over the years. The first people who are the victims of industrial change are those, in many ways, who should be the last victims. I am referring to those who provide the new skills for the future. Under these amendments we will enable the trainee to go to either a new institution to continue his training or to provide for an additional allowance for that company to allow the trainee to stay on the job. Therefore, we will be able to smooth out the up and down cycles of the economic pattern so that it will not drastically affect the training opportunities of many of our workers. That is of critical importance in many of our higher industrialized provinces and regions which, by shifting the burden of the economic downturn on to apprentices or trainees, gives short shrift for the future. People who are being
Adult Occupational Training Act, No. 2
laid off now are the future skilled technicians, technologists and manual workers whom we will need two or three years down the line in order to maintain our economic growth.
In view of that particular serious need, the amendments we propose in this second reading are of great importance. They add to the impetus and necessity for us to put these programs into place as part of our industrial adjustment system so we can provide the incentives and supports, encourage workers to train for those occupations in demand, to leave occupations where work is obsolescent and to move into new occupations where the work is to be found.
The incentive allowance contained within these amendments would give workers up to 70 per cent of their previous earnings, with a weekly ceiling of $220 per week.
Bill C-67 is one, I believe, on which all members of this House can agree. I do not believe that the training of workers in Canada is an issue which lends itself to rigorous partisan division. There can certainly be different points of view as to the kinds of amendments that can be made, improvements, but I repeat, this is just the beginning of a substantially wholesale change in the wide arena of training opportunities which Canadians will have to debate and discuss over the months and the years ahead.
Bill C-67 gives us immediate tools and instruments to apply at a time when we see the gap for workers getting shorter. Unless we start now and begin to overcome that gap, years hence members of this Parliament will be looking back with some degree of regret that this session of Parliament did not act in an expeditious way to pass this bill.
The improvements contained in Bill C-67 should recommend themselves to all members of the House. Because we must act quickly and with dispatch, I trust and hope that it will be possible to secure the consent of members of this House for a speedy passage of this bill so it can become law this summer and we can get on with the new training horizons that we must face by this fall.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to take part in the debate on Bill C-67, an act to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act, No. 2. This act proposes amendments to an act which, I think we all agree, needs updating badly.
We on this side are concerned that the minister is making changes that do not fit exactly the recommendation of Parliament's select Committee on Employment Opportunities for the '80s. I am a member of that committee. I must say that in the last year I have enjoyed my work immensely. I know that several members of the committee wish to speak on this bill as well as other members of my party.
Something I find rather amusing is that everyone on the other side is in a hurry. We get to July and they want to rush everything through. This minister is no exception. He said we need to rush this through, we need it in a hurry, these programs cannot go on without legislation. 1 am surprised to

July 6, 1981
Adult Occupational Training Act, No. 2 hear that coming from him because not having the legislative authority to do it has never before stopped the government from doing something.


Mr. Cousineau:: Name them.


Walter David Baker: He already did. He said Axworthy.


John Horton McDermid: I do not have time to name them all. The government introduces bills at the last minute and then wants to rush them through the House so that it can get away for the summer. However, this is a very important subject and it must be discussed thoroughly.
In this country we have a very serious problem. We have a shortage of skilled workers and a shortage in certain professions. We have about one million unemployed. According to the latest statistics, the unemployment rate across Canada is
7.1	per cent. The goverment likes to talk about that figure in glowing terms. Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada is now in on the act. His definition of full employment is 7 per cent. I am not an economist, but even I know that is not realistic. I doubt whether there are many people in this House who believe this is a realistic figure.
The government and the minister failed to mention that for young persons under the age of 24, unemployment is in the 12.7 per cent range; well over 13 per cent for men that age and under 12 per cent for women. This group makes up 25 per cent of the age 15 and over population, but accounts for 45 per cent of the unemployed.
In the last 14 years the unemployment rate for young people has dropped in only 5 years, but over that period the rate of unemployment for youth has risen from 5.6 to 12.7 per cent, the present rate. Their share of unemployment has risen from 40 per cent to 47 per cent in that time. Of the close to one half million young people unemployed, 50 per cent have less than a grade 10 education.
The problem is immense, as we have found out over the past year when studying and debating the situation in Canada. Recommendations will be forthcoming from the employment opportunities committee. I urge the minister to pay heed to what the committee recommends. I can assure him and his predecessors that we will not rest until the report is implemented or reasons given which prove conclusively that it would be impossible to implement. I am sure pressure will come from all sides of this House.
There are many shortages in some regions of Canada and a surplus of manpower in others. Bringing the two together is a major problem that must be addressed. Are our young people getting the proper training? Why have we not trained in Canada? Is training going on now?
I think it is fair to say that the training going on in Canada is generally of good quality. There are some areas where the equipment being used with which to teach is outdated and some instructors have not had an opportunity to upgrade themselves in the latest techniques, but generally there is good training.
Most definitely there is not enough training being carried out in Canada. One may wonder why. Traditionally, Canada has imported its skilled labour from many countries of the world. It was easy to find the tool and die makers, the aeronautical technologists, the machine operators, and one could go on and on. However, that supply is fast disappearing for a number of reasons.
First, this government changed its emphasis regarding immigrants from one of importing necessary skills to family reunification. I am all for family reunification. As the minister knows, 1 am probably knocking on his door as often as any member of this House regarding those people who immigrate to Canada and make a new start here. However, one statistic which concerns me about our immigration policy at present is that only 24 per cent of those immigrating to Canada have the skills that are required. If the trend we have experienced over the last few years since the act was changed and came into effect in April 1978 continues, the number will be down to 12 per cent in two years. That is dangerous.
The second reason, and this may be hard for some Canadians to understand, is that there are not as many skilled people anxious to make a new start in Canada as has been the experience in the past. With Canada's slip from second to seventh place in standard of living, we are not quite as attractive as we might have been in the past.
The third reason, and this is becoming more of a factor every year, is that with major projects around the world, megaprojects or world projects being carried out in many countries, a shortage of skilled labour is being felt everywhere. Other countries are coming to Canada to try to entice our skilled labour to go to their country to work on major projects. Australia is a prime example of that. Of course, the falling birth rate around the world is another factor. Skilled labour is in short supply.
Canada's manufacturing and service industries must train, and must train in a very big way, if we are to remain competitive in the world marketplace. How do we go about it?
I do not want to second guess the findings of the committee, but I think I can sum up our recommendations by saying we need co-operation, we need emphasis in certain areas of our country, but we have the capacity in Canada to do the job.
Let me discuss co-operation for just a moment. The Dominion of Canada has two levels of government which share certain responsibilities. Therefore, it is important that there be co-operation between the federal and provincial levels. I am very concerned that the back of the spirit of co-operation may be broken and positive moves will be required to heal that broken back. The controversy over the Constitution and the controversy over energy prices have poisoned the atmoshpere.
I am sad to say that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has not seen fit to have a meeting with the provincial ministers responsible for education, manpower and apprenticeship programs and the federal government with regard to its involvement in manpower planning and training. Yes, he made a flying trip across Canada when he was first appointed some 16 or 17 months ago, but
July 6, 1981

since then he has not had meetings, and the two levels are unmistakably entwined. As recently as June 8, 1981 ministers responsible for manpower in four western provinces and the Yukon and Northwest Territories met and set up advisory teams which will address common labour market issues in western Canada, issues such as manpower training, manpower planning and analysis, including mobility of labour, and the effects of immigration. They stated that they would ask to meet the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration to discuss changes prior to implementation. In their communique the participants stated the following:
We hope this kind of consultation is an example the federal government will follow in future and thereby remove one of the issues-that of federal intrusion, unilaterally and without consultation, into fields of education and training, which are under provincial and territorial government jurisdiction.
That is quite an indictment. The situation must change and, being such an open individual, I am sure the minister will take the advice of that committee and its report in this regard and hopefully will call meetings of manpower ministers from across this fair land, and not just the western ministers.
There must be co-operation between labour and management. As I mentioned before and as the minister mentioned in his remarks, more must be done about job training in order to keep Canada competitive. The fault lies at many levels. No one person is to blame for the lack of manpower training in this country. One of those levels is union and management. Unions naturally want to protect those who are working, the journeymen. That is understandable, but unions must realize that to provide a trained work force a number of apprentices must be assured that they will finish their training from start to finish. This can be negotiated and put into contacts.
I toured Orenda Engines in Mississauga. I wish the minister would take time sometime to go down there are take a look at that company. The average age of its skilled workers frightens me. Its skilled work force is aging rapidly and approaching retirement, and there is not one apprentice in the place. This is in the aeronautics industry, in which we all know Canada has a great future. What will happen to companies like this five to ten years down the road? They will be knocking at the minister's door and saying, "We want a mission to Britain to bring some skilled workers from their aeronautic industry back to Canada to work here." They are not training.
We visited Germany and Britain as part of our study, and one of the things we found was that when an apprentice takes on an apprenticeship, he finishes it. He is assured of finishing it. He is not assured of a job, but he is assured of his training, much like our young people going to university. They are guaranteed to finish their courses and to get their degrees. The same is true in our community colleges. Apprenticeships in Canada are not like that. They are last on, first off, and that has to change to assure apprentices that they will complete their education. In Germany 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the companies train skilled workers. In England, it is between 70 per cent and 75 per cent. In Canada it is 20 per cent. We have a critical shortage, and the minister now sees fit to bring in a
Adult Occupational Training Act, No. 2
piecemeal bill. It will help somewhat-I do not argue about that at all-but in no way does it have the answer to Canada's manpower problems.
One of the other problems is mobility of labour. There tends to be a double standard on the gouvernment side. Case after case has been raised. The Department of Employment and Immigration is not allowing a constituent of mine to apply for a job in the metropolitan area of Toronto because he happens to live 100 yards outside an arbitrary boundary set up by personnel. The only reason it was set up was to weed out applications. It was a method of weeding out applications. To my way of thinking, that is not mobility of labour. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) is here tonight. He should be ashamed. Secretaries can apply for work in his department only if they live in Ontario and Quebec. That is some mobility of labour! Pilots for the government must come from one province, or they cannot apply. There is no mobility of labour there. We see this type of thing happening in the government, and we hear great pious remarks from hon. members opposite about how they have to solve the mobility of labour problem, but I suggest they take a look at their own closets before they ask other people to clean up their closets.
We begin to understand why a premier of a province, such as Premier Peckford, says, "Jobs for my people first, and then we will go much wider." Some of my friends opposite from Quebec have discussed the problem with me. Naturally they want jobs created in the province of Quebec for Quebecers first. I understand that, but the double standards which are being preached are very unfair.
Then there are special interest groups of workers with limited access to the labour market. Discrimination is a barrier to access. In the labour market there is a distinction which is made based solely on race, sex, age or physical handicaps. In the case of natives, they suffer general discrimination on the part of employers. This is particularly visible in the service sector where the jobs require contact with the public. In many cases this discrimination takes place during the selection of candidates, while in other cases it takes place during employment. This situation pushes natives to choose social welfare rather than being subjected to such humiliations. Other groups make much less frequent use of the word "discrimination", which leads to the belief that barriers are less insurmountable or the work environment less hostile.
However, women claim to be subject to job discrimination and discrimination in training possibilities. The same happens to physically handicapped persons and to senior workers. Natives face problems which seem deeper than those of other groups. Natives want to have jobs, as do all citizens of Canada. They find the working environment alienating because it is insufficiently flexible to their socio-cultural peculiarities. It is therefore necessary to establish improved dialogue between the world of business and industry on the one hand and natives on the other. I feel that the attitudes of employers must change, and concrete measures should be taken in this regard. Unemployment among natives is alarming. Unemployment rates

July 6, 1981
Adult Occupational Training Act, No. 2
reaching up to 90 per cent in some areas are quoted. This problem will only become more pressing as a massive influx of young natives into the labour market is forecast over the next ten years. Given that the current employment possibilities on the reserves are limited, these young people will increase the ranks of the urban unemployed, and they must be trained.
Women also have specific problems to overcome in order to enter the labour market and to keep stable employment. They are often limited to subordinate, low-paying jobs. They have no hope of moving out of them by orienting themselves toward non-traditional types of female employment because of rigid social attitudes which classify them by sexist stereotypes.
Labour market structures are another important barrier, particularly for those women who have family responsibilities. The rigidity of work schedules is a case in point. So is the limited availability of part-time jobs, shared employment and so on. The other main obstacle to the access of women to the labour market is the absence of employment support services. Representatives of women's groups agree that employment prospects will remain limited as long as there are no day care services easily accessible to all. It is also necessary to introduce other improvements such as better professional counselling, which, I might add, is handled very capably in Outreach programs. In summary, if it is desired that the work of women contribute to economic performance, it is necessary to introduce services to facilitate their access to the labour market.
The physically handicapped, Mr. Speaker, even in this year of the handicapped are still perceived as being incapable of making a positive social contribution. If their access to work were facilitated and if changes in the social attitude towards them could be introduced, they could become productive. The current rate of unemployment among young people is high, due no doubt to demographic factors, career choice errors and, at least partly, to the imposition of abusive entry requirements for jobs, as well as demands for previous experience which is often not necessary. The attitudes of unions, for example the closed shop, would also limit their employment opportunities. These are people who really do need help and training in a manpower planning program, and this is not specifically addressed in Bill C-67. As the minister knows full well, the matter must be addressed and quickly.
The matter of financing of professional training is an age old problem. Who should finance the training? How can the present financing system be improved? I personally feel manpower training is as important a part of post-secondary education as is university or community college education. Manpower on the job training, apprenticeship training and skills training in technical fields are a part of our post-secondary education system and should be treated as such. I think the financing system can be grouped under four main themes: Financing problems which enterprises must face; current policy on grants and the means to improve it; use of the fiscal
system as a means to subsidize training; the establishment of a grant levy system.
Training involves costs for firms either directly or indirectly by an increase in the cost of production. Although these costs may eventually be recovered in the shape of higher productivity and eventual reduction of bottlenecks if the employee turnover rate is low, there is still an immediate burden the firm must bear. Small and medium-sized businesses are often unable to bear these costs and need some kind of assistance. In this regard, in spite of an often questionable allocation of funds, government assistance for training is very important to those firms. In spite of this assistance, a large share is borne by the firm. In certain sectors the share would be in the order of 75 to 80 per cent, and even more. Under these circumstances it is not surprising to find that the training activity is lower than what the companies themselves would like to maintain. Therefore, they should receive greater government assistance in the form of wage subsidies, capital subsidies for the equipment required for training, and general subsidies for human resources they allocate to training. Otherwise they cannot have a sufficient level of activity in these fields, particularly at a time when profit margins are low, non-existent or negative.
In their judgment, government assistance is further justified because they finance through corporate income taxes an education system which supplies at no cost trained personnel to other sectors, particularly the service sector.
As to the present grant policy, we have heard that the desirability of maintaining this policy is not uniform. One group, mainly business representatives, wish to maintain the principle. As for changes in fund allocation, it would be desirable that government offer financial assistance for training periods of up to four years. In addition, the assistance offered for the training of apprentices should cover a greater share, or even all, of the costs incurred by the firm. There is also a general feeling that training should more closely match the needs of the local community and this should lead to different financing mechanisms. Funds should be redistributed to support initiatives at the local level. This is being done in some areas to a limited degree. Other groups, mainly labour representatives, would like the government to withdraw completely from the financing of training programs, or at least play only a complementary or ancillary role. The reason invoked is that training is usually the responsibility of the firm and it must therefore fully assume it. Many raise the issue, however, from the viewpoint of economic efficiency. Such a system of complete self-financing has the advantage of assuring society that the cost to the firm of trained personnel more closely approaches its real economic cost. Furthermore, the parties directly involved are better equipped to define the over-all needs for financing and to undertake an efficient allocation of resources to training.
Some people suggest the use of the fiscal system to expand training and distribute its benefits and costs in a more equitable way. There are already employment tax credit programs, and it is felt that they have had a positive effect on training. Some people have proposed innovations. For example, grants
July 6, 1981

could be given to training in the form of corporate tax credits, or tax breaks could be given to those who must train highly qualified manpower, or the training costs should be made tax deductible. Alternatively, a special tax could be imposed on business enterprises which use journeymen, while allowing these firms to deduct the total training expenses from their taxable income. All these ideas have been presented to the Standing Committee on Employment Opportunities for the '80s.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there is the grant levy system. This has been discussed a great deal by the committee. The reactions vary from very supportive to very unfavourable, with a wide range of opinions between the two. I am sure my colleague from the NDP will be touching on this a little later on. The main thrust of the argument of those who support this type of financing is that it distributes training expenses for a sector equitably among the firms, thereby eliminating piracy from one business to another. It would guarantee firms that their training costs will be reimbursed and penalize those which do not train people. It is therefore seen as a way of eliminating the free-riders and increasing the efficiency and volume of training. For those who express opposition, there are different reasons behind the positions they take. The system is inefficient, it would only lead to compounding of the existing problems, or it is inequitable as it does not treat all sectors equally and penalize the goods-producing sector while imposing no additional costs on the service sector.
Positions between the two extremes provide a more qualified argumentation. Witnesses in this group recognize as a whole that at least part of the training costs must be transferred to industry and that industry must make a concerted effort to increase training. Three aspects of the grant-levy system caused some reticence. The need to apply such a system to all industrial sectors has not been demonstrated. Some sectors could establish their own self-financing system for training- and it was indicated that this is now the case in some industries-without being forced to do so and without having to create a new bureaucratic structure. If the government were to establish the system, it was felt that it should be on a very limited basis or through pilot projects.
Before formulating recommendations, the central question to be solved is to know whether or not firms need government assistance for training. The following recommendations are presented in three groups: recommendations which support the position, first, of those who believe that government financial assistance must be increased, second, of those who believe that such assistance must be abolished, and third of those who have mixed positions on the matter. Increased government assistance to firms, particularly those of small and medium size which have difficulty in meeting the high cost of training, must be maintained. Training assistance must be increased. Government should consider expanding this assistance into the area of capital grants for the equipment required for training, as well as to the wages and subsidies for employers who are doing the training. Government should proceed to reallocate funds cur-
Adult Occupational Training Act, No. 2
rently earmarked for training so as to link them to initiatives taken at the local level. In other words, the government should target its expenditures more carefully.
Then there are those who would eliminate government assistance to the firms. The government should recognize that training is the responsibility of the firm and withdraw completely from the field. It should redirect funds currently assigned to training programs toward training fields centred on the third sector of the economy. Other positions somewhere in between suggest that the government should use the taxation system to encourage firms to become involved in training. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) sitting over there thinking about that one. To this end the government should provide tax credits for training. Perhaps it should even increase them. The government should make all training costs tax deductible, or it should introduce a special tax for enterprises which use trained labour and combine this measure with the tax deductibility of training costs.
Those are some of the problems and some of the solutions which were presented to the Standing Committee on Employment Opportunities for the '80s. We should think about some of these solutions very carefully before forthcoming recommendations are made. This is why we are somewhat concerned that the minister is presenting the bill before the recommendations from the committee are presented to him.
Bill C-67 provides assistance in much needed areas. I am pleased the government will contract with independent groups at private educational facilities which provide excellent service. This will help us train some of the skilled workers we are missing. As I understand it, it affords the right of unions to sign intertraining contracts and to be given allowances. I am pleased with the lifting of the one-year ceiling and the revocation of the requirement that trainees must be out of school at least one year. There are many other factors in the bill with which we are very pleased. However, although we feel it is premature, we will not prevent its passage.
I should like to sum up what we feel must happen in manpower training and planning in the country. We have not seen too much evidence of it, but we assume that in this decade there will be economic policies to create growth based on the perception of long-term economic strengths which can be exploited. There is a critical skill shortage. We will not be able to achieve our growth potential without a significant investment in training. I hope the government is aware of the crisis situation.
There is a great deal of growth potential in many areas of Canada. In the east there are the energy finds with which we are all so pleased. In the west there are the megaprojects of the not too distant future. Of course there are great opportunities in more sparsely populated parts of the north. But the growth will not be achieved unless there is some significant movement in the labour force. A portion of our population will have to move to where the jobs are. Solutions will be arrived at in direct proportion to the degree to which the federal and provincial governments, as well as industry and labour groups, are willing to work together as partners in solving the prob-
11246

July 6, 1981
Adult Occupational Training Act, No. 2 lems. The solutions will have to encompass a strong sense of the uniqueness of particular communities, industries, cultural groups, regions and required skills.
This bill does not make a dint on the problem. The recommendations are fine but they are piecemeal. It really does not take a fresh, imaginative, gutsy approach to the problem. In typical Grit fashion, throw a little money at it; put a band-aid here and a tourniquet there; patch up the holes and make it look good, as if we were doing something-"Public, here we are; we are great and we are helping you out."
Could it be that this stop-gap measure is put in so that the government can wait for the little munchkin from the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), The Alberta boy who cannot win a seat in that province for the Liberals and must be parachuted into Spadina? Is the government awaiting him? I notice one of his priorities is manpower planning. Perhaps that is why the government has not brought in a comprehensive bill and is not looking at the problem in total. Perhaps the government is parachuting this Alberta boy into Spadina because it knows he cannot win out west and that he will take the place of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) in planning. I would advise the minister to watch himself.


An hon. Member:: He has not even been nominated yet.


John Horton McDermid: Listen to them. I must have struck a nerve over there. The curtain bangers in the back row are rattling their sabres. We of the Progressive Conservative party are dedicated to long-term meaningful employment for all residents of Canada. We will work hard toward that end. In the meantime we must put up with this "stick your finger in the dike" approach to solving what is a crisis problem in Canada. I wish the minister would wait for the report of the Standing Committee on Employment Opportunities for the '80s, the Dodge report and the other reports which are reaching fruition at the present time. He should take time to absorb them and then bring in comprehensive, exciting, imaginative, workable solutions to the manpower crisis in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, for almost a year now a parliamentary committee on employment, representative of the three political parties in Parliament, has been meeting. The committee held hearings from one end of the country to the other. It heard submissions from industry, labour, educators, community groups, outreach organizations, native organizations and handicapped people. All of these groups were extemely critical of government manpower employment training programs until now. They were especially critical of the federal Department of Employment and immigration. All of them expressed the view that we needed to have a great deal more on the job training than we have had.
When the committee visited a number of countries in Europe, it was able to see how backward Canada was as
compared to the western European countries in terms of training people to fill the skilled jobs which every modern industrialized country needs. Virtually all the representations we heard stressed the need to have a great deal more decentralization of the planning and the administration of programs than we have had in the past. All of them believe-and this was particularly true of both employer and employee groups, union groups-that no programs could succeed unless there were the fullest consultation between labour, management, educators and governments at the federal and provincial levels. When it is ready, the committee will be tabling a report which, I suppose, 97 per cent of the members support. I am amazed at how few of the views which the committee heard and the opinions which the committee formed are embodied in the bill before us or in the statement made by the minister tonight, or even on earlier occasions since he became the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy).
Before going into some of the difficulties I see in the bill I would like to spend a few minutes making it clear that as far as our party is concerned we believe it is impossible to plan and implement a really successful job creation and training program which will be of any real benefit, unless we are committed to a program of full employment. If we do not have full employment, all we will accomplish will be a better educated and better trained group of unemployed.
Back in 1945 a Liberal government tabled a white paper on employment and income in which a policy of full employment was laid down on behalf of that government. The white paper expressed the belief of the government that a job should be provided for every Canadian who wished to work and the adoption of policies which would achieve that end.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Members opposite shout their agreement and I agree with them.
In the first annual review of the Economic Council in 1964, full employment was discussed. The council estimated that full employment in Canada would be reached when we had an unemployment rate of 3 per cent. It is interesting to note that in the periods after these goals were affirmed, they were substantially met. Between 1946 and 1953 the unemployment rate averaged 3 per cent. After the review of the Economic Council in the mid-sixties, to which I have referred, we had three full employment years between 1965 and 1967 when the unemployment rate averaged 3.8 per cent. Since that time, the unemployment rate has moved steadily upward, and by the mid-1970s the average rate had almost doubled. Between 1975 and 1977 it stood at 7.4 per cent. We have now had 60 months-five years-in which the official seasonally adjusted level of unemployment has been in excess of 7 per cent. That is more than twice what the Economic Council projected back in 1963.
I would ask you to keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the 7 per cent rate very substantially underestimated the real rate of unemployment, since we have somewhere between 250,000 and 350,000 people who are not calculated into the official
July 6, 1981

rates by Statistics Canada because they are no longer actively looking for jobs. These people live in areas of high unemployment where there is no use looking for a job because there are no jobs. Also accounted for in these figures are native people living on reserves. It is important to note that youth unemployment is almost twice the official rate of over 7 per cent. It is over 12 per cent. Native unemployment on reserves, for at least part of each year, runs at between 60 per cent and 90 per cent. Mr. Speaker, the government has given up the objective of full employment as enunciated-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member will have noticed that I have been looking at the bill which is now before the House in order to determine whether or not he is addressing himself to it. I understand that a discussion on employment is related to Bill C-67, but I think the hon. member should try to bring his remarks a little closer to the nature of the bill, which is related to adult occupational training. If the hon. member could do that, it would be of some assistance to the Chair.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have only spoken for a few minutes. I intend to get to the guts of the bill very shortly.
As I said a moment ago, it seems to us quite fruitless to be discussing occupational training unless we really have a full employment policy. Thus, I would like to conclude this part of my speech by pointing out that over the years the government has moved away from a full employment policy, which meant 3 per cent or 4 per cent unemployment some years ago. The government now seems prepared, as does the Governor of the Bank of Canada, to accept an unemployment rate of over 7 per cent as being full employment. Our party does not accept that. We say that if that is the government's view then, in fact, the whole program of training people will be a failure.
1 would now like to deal with some of the clauses of the bill which is before us, a few of which we think move in the right direction and one or two of which we think are fundamentally wrong and which will lead to the failure of the whole program as enunciated by the minister.
Clause 1 of the bill amends the existing act to provide for training courses for periods longer than a year. That is to say, training allowances will be paid to people for more than a year who attend courses which have been approved by the department. This is a very late acceptance of a criticism which has been made in this House and outside it almost since the time the bill was first introduced. It was obvious from the beginning that, particularly for highly-skilled occupations, a one-year training course was not sufficient and, therefore, the government should have arranged for people to receive training allowances for more than a year. Hence, we greet this amendment with approval.
However, we note that this change applies only to full-time training, which we think is a mistake. We think the bill should be much more flexible. We believe that the bill should provide that part-time training courses be made available for more than a year if that is deemed to be useful to the community. This bill has an amendment which removes the former regula-
Adult Occupational Training Act, No. 2
tion that a person would have to be out of school for a year prior to being committed to take a training course and to have training allowances. That is another provision which we have criticized for a number of years; and to the extent that it changes that and gives the government and the individuals some flexibility, we support it.
I want to spend a little time on the section which I think is extremely important and is extremely bad. The minister will not be surprised if I raise this matter because I have raised it on a number of occasions in the last few months. I refer to the section of the bill which says the following:
The commission may enter into a contract with
(a)	any employer that operates or undertakes to operate an occupational
training course . . .
(b)	any employer that arranges or undertakes to arrange for the training of
adults employed by the employer ...
(c)	any group or association of employers referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
If there is one message which the Committee on Employment for the '80s got from almost everyone who made representations to the task force, it was that training programs would be a failure unless they were worked out in consultation with employers, with employees and with the educational institutions and the federal-provincial governments concerned. Yet here we have in this bill again the insistence of the minister and the department that the agreements worked out by the department need only be worked out with the employer or groups of employee associations.
In the last year, we have had a number of agreements announced by the minister. We had the industrial labour restructuring program, for which $350 million was provided in the budget by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). That program was to be used to help train people in part in areas like Windsor, Sept-Iles, Sydney and several other cities. Then we have had the individual agreements announced almost every week by this minister or other ministers, and I will just name some of the industries they cover: the foundry industry, the aerospace industry, the coal association, the mining association, the shipbuilding industry and the clothing and textile industry.
As I said, if there was one message which was given to the task force, it was that these programs would not succeed unless they were worked out in co-operation with both labour and management.
The committee was not the only group which got that message. I have before me a report by the major projects task force on major capital projects in Canada to the year 1980, a joint industry-labour committee set up through the good offices of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). What does it say about employment and manpower? Let me quote, beginning on page 55 of the report. It reads:
There should be a shift in emphasis in training programs towards increased on-the-job training.

July 6, 1981
Adult Occupational Training Act, No. 2
The minister is moving in that direction, although I think much too slowly, in these agreements, some of which I have listed. Then it goes to say:
This should involve a reallocation of spending priorities for government training programs such as the Canada Manpower Training Program.
Action will also be required to ensure the expansion of on-the-job training by industry. It is proposed that a levy-grant system be introduced on an experimental and selective, sectoral basis to impose a payroll training tax levy on employers in those industries where training-related shortages are known to exist.
I do not intend to go into detail about the levy-grant system tonight, but it recommends as follows:
Academic institutions, industry and organized labour must work together more closely to help ensure the relevancy of academic programs.
There is nothing in this bill, and there was nothing in any of the agreements announced by this minister or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) in their announcement about the training programs for the textile and clothing industry which would indicate that the government paid any attention to the views of labour at all. 1 raised this matter on a number of occasions, and each time the minister has brushed off the suggestions which I made. The minister knows that I was not just talking for the sake of talking, because I have here a letter sent to the minister by the national director of the United Steelworkers of America, one of the largest unions in this country. The letter is dated June 1, 1981. He deals very specifically and critically with the minister in respect to the matter which 1 am raising at the present time. Let me just quote the following sentences from the letter which the national director of the United Steelworkers of America, Gerard Docquier, sent to the minister on June 1, 1981:
The labour movement has not been consulted in the preparation of these programs.
He is talking about the coal and mining training proposals. Then he goes on to say:
Only after the fact, that is only after the programs have been announced, has there been any effort by your government to consult with the labour movement.
Then he goes on to say:
These agreements were signed on April 14 and 15 respectively and we heard about them for the first time when they were publicly announced. We were subsequently notified that officials of your department and of the associations were willing to hold a briefing session with officials of our union. This cannot by any means be described as consultations.
Then he goes on to say, further:
The union is, for all practical purposes, completely denied any opportunity to contribute to a program that will directly affect its members. In other words, the people who will be touched by the programs have no input into them.
Let me pause for a minute to remind the minister of one of the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) when he pointed out the difficulties which now exist when there is a slowdown in some plant, and following the usual practice, the last people hired are the first people laid off. Therefore, according to the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown, many times apprentices who are being trained for the skilled jobs for which there is such a shortage are laid off. Is it any wonder that unions will insist on that kind of procedure? They want to protect their
members. If they are not consulted, as this letter indicates they have not been consulted by the minister in these new agreements, is it any wonder that unions will be less than enthusiastic about co-operating with the government and with employers in the programs to try to meet the skilled shortages which we are beginning to see?
Then Mr. Docquier goes on to write about that industrial labour training program, the $350 million program announced last October, and points out that the CLC wanted to be consulted on that program but it was not. Regarding that program and how it was worked out, he said:
Officials of the CLC were told of the program late on a Friday and it was made public on the following Monday. They were also told then that labour would be involved in the committees at the level of the designated communities for the implementation of the programs.
Then he goes on to say:
If labour had been consulted on the training agreements or the industrial adjustment program, it would have meant that labour would have had an opportunity to provide some input into the preparation of the programs. This has obviously not taken place and we regret it because better programs might have resulted from consultation with the people affected.
What we have now is a criticism of the programs which the minister has been announcing, as I say, almost every week. This bill enshrines in legislation the same kind of policy that is so harshly criticized by unions and is ignored by the government.
A similar letter went to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in connection with their announcement about the training program for the textile and clothing industry, from the vicepresident of the Canadian Textile Workers Union, Mr. Sam Fox. I do not have time to put that letter on the record but I think it is pretty clear that, to say the least, labour is very dissatisfied with the policy the government is following as it is spelled out in detail in this bill.
Let me go to another part of the same clause in the bill. Clause 5 reads in part as follows:
Where an employer or a group or association of employers is not able to operate an adult occupational course or to arrange for training in an adult occupational course as described in subsection (1), the Commission may enter into contract with any other person who, or any other group-
Why does the department lock itself into that kind of restrictive policy? Why should the department not be able to make an agreement with any group which can train people to fill the skilled positions we need?
The minister mentioned the success of a couple of native groups which are involved in training and we know the committee on employment learned a few things in its two short visits to the United States. In Washington and New York we saw decentralized programs of training. Instead of all the decisions being made in Washington by a department of government, to a very large extent these programs have been decentralized. The department that-
July 6, 1981


Lloyd Axworthy: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I want to point out to him that what he is saying does not correspond with the act. Under Section 6(2) of the act we can sign an agreement with any group or association which wishes to provide training. I recommend that the hon. member read the act that we are dealing with rather than whatever act he is quoting from.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I will read the section again. It reads as follows:
Where an employer or a group or association of employers is not able to operate an adult occupational course or to arrange for training in an adult occupational course as described . . .
That indicates to me that the initial action has to be taken by a group of employers. Then, and only then, can other groups come in. Up to now the government has been very slow to do the kind of things that have been done in the United States.
I know the minister will not agree, but he certainly has not convinced any of the Outreach groups about this. He is in the process of bringing to an end virtually all the Outreach programs which have been so successful up until now.


Lloyd Axworthy: A point or order, Mr. Speaker. Again I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but again he is stating something which is not a fact. He neglected to read the full Section 6(2). We have not ended any Outreach program; in fact, we have expanded them. I think it would be useful if the hon. member stuck to facts rather than whatever he has conjured up in his imagination.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened to what the hon. gentleman said. The hon. minister's comment is not a point of order, and the minister is in danger of prolonging the debate. Might he not just let the debate roll?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the interjections of the minister. The facts are there; the record is there; the Outreach groups have been very vocal in saying that they are being phased out. They are certainly operating on a month-to-month basis. They certainly do not know how long their projects will continue. The minister has made an announcement that his department is going to expand its special services. It sounds to some members on this side and to Outreach groups that what the minister is proposing is that the department will do the work which the Outreach groups have been doing until now.
In the United States we saw non-governmental, non-profit groups which were doing the things that the Outreach groups are trying to do in this country. They were doing these things much more successfully than the Outreach groups because they were not working on a one month, six months or one year contract. They had reason to believe that they could continue indefinitely. They were finding jobs and training people in areas of the community where there is very high unemployment. They had the finances and manpower to go out, as our Outreach groups do not have, to meet prospective employers
Adult Occupational Training Act, No. 2
and to talk to them about their needs within the next year and to train people for those jobs.
We saw two projects in the black ghettos of New York where there is very high racial unemployment. They had information from 65 banks about the number of tellers needed in the coming year and, they were training people from high unemployment areas to be bank tellers. These people had the assurance that if they succeeded and finished the course, there would be jobs for them. We were told that 75 per cent of those who graduated found jobs, and a year later 50 per cent of them were still working. We saw similar projects where people were being trained to feed information into computers.
We have nothing like that, Mr. Speaker. We have very few projects which train native people. In Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary or Vancouver there are large numbers of unemployed native people. The minister has talked a great deal about helping them find jobs in the private sector, but we have not seen much evidence of success. There has been virtually no success in finding jobs in the public service for the native people who are moving into our cities in increasing numbers. They are not in the police department or the fire department in Winnipeg or in the parks department. They are not in the federal government. There are no native letter carriers or mail sorters in the Post Office. I could list 25 or 30 occupations in Winnipeg in which native people could find employment if they had the training, which they do not have, or if they had the work experience, which they do not have.
We would like to see the kind of programs begun in the United States and which have been so successful there. Nongovernmental, non-profit or even private enterprise projects train people who have not been able to find jobs, particularly the women, the handicapped, the native people, to mention just three groups. They are helped to get the training and move into jobs where they are needed. Yet we see very little of that in this bill. While there are some facets of this bill with which we can agree and make improvements over what we have had until now, we see very little if any reason to believe that the government believes enough in full employment to devise policies which will move us toward full employment. Indeed, most of the emphasis which we have seen on the part of the government, as expressed by the Minister of Finance, talked about the need to control inflation as being much more important than the need to cut down on the number of employees. The government talks about the need for restraint rather than the necessity of job creation.
Even without regard for what we believe to be a fundamental flaw in the government's philosophy and policy, we still believe that this bill merely puts another patch on a tattered policy which the government has had for many years now in terms of manpower training.
As I said at the beginning, I wish the minister had waited for this bill until the task force on employment, on which there are a majority of Liberal members, had reported. When that report comes out, the minister will see the unanimous view of

July 6, 1981
Adult Occupational Training Act, No. 2
the committee that what is needed is a much more flexible program, a much more decentralized program and a much more open program, one which is worked on not from the top down, as our training and employment programs have been for many years under Liberal governments, but a program that is worked out in consultation with community groups, native groups, labour and management, all designed to meet the needs of the communities in slow growth areas and in areas of this country in which there will be a tremendous increase in the number of skilled workers, who will be needed to fill the jobs opened up as a result of the tremendous expansion we are likely to see in megaprojects over the next ten to 20 years.
While we approve of some of the clauses in this bill, I say to the minister that it is far short of what is needed.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my comments on Bill C-67, representing as I do a riding that is industrial and highly urban. It is a riding with a large number of people making demands for adult and apprenticeship training programs.
St. Catharines has for some time experienced high unemployment, while local industries, the automotive and the shipbuilding industries, go begging for skilled labour. The solution to date has been one of seeking offshore employment, bypassing the great numbers of people who feel they are qualified and able to fit into those jobs. As we know from the press, from the Special Committee on Employment Opportunities for the '80s and from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) himself, Canada will not be able to hire enough skilled labour overseas to cope with our present labour demands.
Why should we be surprised at this? How could we truly have expected other nations to go on training people only to have them emigrate to Canada on completion of that training? To stop this drain, foreign industries have improved wages, working conditions and fringe benefits. In the meantime, Canada is not the attractive place that it once used to be.
Figures themselves bear this out. In 1975, over 75,000 immigrants came to Canada with skills appropriate to our needs-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I must apologize to hon. members. I do not know whether it is the Chair who is at fault or whether there is a tendency to drift on to other subjects, but I am looking at a bill which has to do with adult occupational training. I have to ask the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) to deal with that bill. It is not an opportunity to go into an entire concept of employment or unemployment practices in Canada. The bill has to do with adult occupational training.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For employment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: With respect to the hon. member, I would ask that he please direct his remarks to that bill.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not challenging the Chair but I was attempting to emphasize that the concern in the community from which I come is for adult training programs and increased apprenticeship training programs. I thought that was the very nature of the bill before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Lloyd Reid: I want to emphasize that in Ontario, a province which provides half the nation's output in goods, it is expected that in four years there will be a shortage of some 35,000 skilled workers. Ratio figures do, of course, vary but as a minimum this shortage will create other unskilled job losses of 175,000 positions.
In Alberta, the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority is predicting severe shortages in a wide range of highly skilled jobs, including a shortfall of some 1,000 scientists a year.
Finally, the Minister of Employment and Immigration said in Halifax on May 27 last that Canadians might have two to three years' grace before the bubble of imbalances in the labour market bursts, causing severe shortages of skilled labour.
The burning question is how did this problem develop. Unfortunately, like most disgraceful and blameworthy situations, the culprits have no end of excuses. Government, industry, unions, secondary and post-secondary institutions, even society in general, can all be said to share the responsibility for the labour shortage problems of today. Our responsibility here is to examine the federal role, of which Bill C-67 is one response and only one, to the impending crisis.
Recently, a publication called Odyssey carried a three-part special report on the skilled labour shortage here in Canada. One comment in the third part of that report read:
Ottawa's approach to training is something of a dog's breakfast.
I considered referring to that article this evening but I ultimately decided not to do so because I find the situation reprehensible. In fact, I despair at the inability of this government and the minister to address this problem seriously.
Over and over again, Canadians and the Progressive Conservative party pounded away at this government on the issue of the Constitution, making the essential criticism that the entire process was arbitrary and authoritarian. Just as the provinces were ignored and snubbed by the government over the Constitution, so now this minister is barging ahead with his bill without a full discussion with provincial authorities or even the labour movement. To add further insult to this, the minister will not shy away from impressing upon everyone else the need for consultation and co-operation with the provinces.
Only a week ago, the minister said in Toronto that what was needed was intelligence work, a co-operative effort and a wide-ranging debate on the issues. Presumably this will take place after the passage of Bill C-67.
July 6, 1981

Once again, it falls to the Progressive Conservative party to speak out for the provinces. And who should know better than the provinces what the industries of those provinces want and need. Why would the federal government bother with committees on manpower needs if it is going to ignore the provinces on amendments to the Adult Occupational Training Act?
If we are to make any headway on the skilled labour front, and I have to join in the criticism levelled against the federal government, the federal government will have to get off its high horse and work in concert with the provinces. However, I doubt that the provinces could really object to any of the amendments proposed in Bill C-67. The simple fact is that, given the magnitude of the problem, these amendments are woefully inadequate. No one can snub a little help, but you sure can scream for more.
For example, an extra $25 a week over and above regular UIC payments is to be given to laid off workers who enter an apprenticeship training program. What, may 1 ask, is so magical about $25? How or why was this figure arrived at? On an individual basis, the amount is neither here nor there, yet for the government it represents a significant expenditure. As such, I must conclude that this is neither an incentive nor a necessary expense, and is therefore simply in keeping with the government's long-term policy of simply throwing money at a problem.
Various other amendments denote housekeeping efforts as opposed to improvements as such. The one-year ceiling on government assistance to trainees has been lifted; assistance for short-term training outside Canada is provided for, and various areas and industries are to receive increased assistance for apprenticeships. These measures are of some help but they pale by comparison with the magnitude of the problem.
In that regard, allow me to give the House an example. The General Motors plant in Windsor, Ontario will have 50 apprentice positions opening up this year. GM officials expect some 2,000 applicants. How, I hate to ask again, is Bill C-67 going to be of any help in a mess like that, where there is such a demand?
In a country like Canada which can boast of a highly educated population and a relatively high standard of living, surely we can do better than Bill C-67. We know what the problem is and we know that increased apprenticeship programs are a good part of the solution. Prior to this mail strike, I had been receiving correspondence from constituents who were truly caught in a bind, seeking an apprenticeship training program.
For these people academic upgrading is the solution as it supplies an income coupled with a comfortable atmosphere. Once their academic upgrading has been completed, they are then able to undertake training at community or technical colleges. For reasons not yet clear, Niagara College is cutting back on its very necessary adult training program.
The other avenue is apprenticeship programs, and that is where the respective governments are going to have to work in
Adult Occupational Training Act, No. 2
concert. For its part, the federal government should be doing everything it possibly can to assist and encourage people to enrol in apprenticeship programs. Bill C-67 is not going to do this. As I stated earlier, this minister and this government will have to act quickly on the skilled labour shortage problem or Canadians will be in serious trouble.
I began by saying that my riding of St. Catharines has been experiencing high unemployment for some time and that local industries were going begging for skilled labour. The amendments proposed in Bill C-67 to the Adult Occupational Training Act are not sufficiently meaningful to change that situation, nor do the amendments represent any meaningful consultation with the provincial authorities. It is therefore with regret that I cannot support this bill. It is simply too little, too late.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-67 to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act. I compliment the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) on bringing forward this amendment. It is long overdue. This bill should have been brought in at least two years ago, because under current legislation there is little incentive to have an apprenticeship or training program.
Unemployment insurance payments have risen to such an extent that there is absolutely no incentive. A man or woman is much better off receiving unemployment insurance benefits than undergoing retraining. There should be some incentive.
I question whether the extra $25 a week proposed in the bill is enough. Again there is a ceiling. Next year at this time we may have to deal with another bill because if inflation continues, unemployment insurance benefits will also rise. This is something I caution the minister about and suggest he seriously consider.
I understand the minister would like third reading of this bill before the summer recess. Hopefully this can be accomplished because the bill is long overdue. Those receiving extra benefits will be in the skilled trades-this currently include tool and die makers, welders, boilermakers-as well as in some of the other extensive areas of training.
I have some difficulty with this bill. Applications are made by employers for immigrants in a certain category. This applies to special skilled trades. Consideration should also be given to certain secondary trades. Certain skills in some areas are not addressed in this way. Certain skilled areas may not appear highly sensitive to the economy. I refer to the hotel service industry and the food industry. Skilled labour is required in that industry. It is very difficult to fill these jobs. Canadians do not want them. In addition, it is difficult to hire people from other countries to come here and fill those jobs.
Other areas of industry have been designated by governor in council for increased assistance for individuals entering training. They will be paid up to 70 per cent of their income up to a maximum of $225 a week. I know it is costly, but I believe placing a maximum of $225 a week is a mistake. 1 seriously suggest that this be left open. A system should be set up in consultation with the provinces so that there are certain high

July 6. 1981
Adjournment Debate
growth areas. Workers will be attracted to areas paying higher salaries. However, the cost of living in those areas will be higher and therefore this $225 maximum may not meet the requirements. I would like to see it open-ended with either a higher range or no maximum at all. If the requirement is critical in some areas of training, this may need to be increased by 25 per cent or 30 per cent. Right now I understand this $225 a week applies mainly to the auto assembly industry in Windsor, Ontario, primary metal industry in Sudbury and shipbuilding in Sorel and TTracy, Quebec, but I suggest there are other areas, particularly fast-growth areas, where this is happening.
I have only a few more remarks to make, and I would like to continue them when the debate resumes, but at this point may I call it ten o'clock?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is in his place. Could he confirm that we will be dealing with this bill tomorrow?


David Michael Collenette: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we shall consider the same bill tomorrow, namely Bill C-67.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And if we conclude that will we move to Bill C-53?
[ Translation]


David Michael Collenette: Yes, Mr. Speaker, several bills still to be considered before the adjournment of the House, perhaps next Friday, perhaps next week.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor this evening concerning an industry which has created thousands of jobs, and in the light of what I hear about the
performance of the Progressive Conservatives, job creation in the aviation industry has been a real disaster if we consider the approach of the Diefenbaker government which cancelled outright the Canada aircraft Arrow and the sale of that aircraft because of the price of the metal.
The approach of the Liberal government has indeed been to promote the aviation industry in 1975 through the purchase of Canadair and de Havilland in Toronto. Those two companies today employ over 7,000 workers.
I think that the Liberal government must now take the initiative and create jobs for Canadians in a sector of advanced technology.
On June 15 last, Mr. Speaker, still in connection with job creation in aeronautics, I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) if in that field there was an anticipated labour shortage of more than 13,000 skilled workers for the year 1983. I was trying to make the minister aware of the fact that the province of Quebec accounts for more that 50 per cent of that economic sector, both in terms of the sales which is close to $1 billion and the number of jobs offered by the aviation industry.
I asked the minister whether he had given consideration to the establishment of a manpower training and planning program jointly with that industrial sector and the government of Quebec. I asked that question as a follow up on a press release issued by his department last May 13 where it was stated that, after an agreement with regard to planning in that industry, the chairman of the board of the Canadian aerospace industries and the president of the association, Mr. Desroches, had signed an agreement, a planning program providing manpower training and a large scale expansion of businesses. Thus one of the first results of that agreement was the creation of a training program related to engines in Ontario. I fully agree that we have to start somewhere.
I do not object to the program starting in Ontario but I would have liked it to have some advantages for Quebec. Therefore, I wonder if the minister or his parliamentary secretary could tell us tonight whether the minister intends to sign or has already signed an agreement with the province of Quebec, because both the federal government and Pratt & Whitney are aware of the importance of manpower training. I certainly support the second reading of Bill C-67 to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act in order to promote job creation in areas where there is a demand and a market for it. Could the parliamentary secretary tell us whether an agreement has been signed in the province of Quebec in co-operation with the private sector and the federal department of Employment and Immigration, to help Quebec residents who want to go into the aviation business in order to be in a position to compete for the 13,000 jobs that would be available in 1983?
July 6, 1981


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to point out to the hon. member that the minister has been aware for some time of the importance of directly linking manpower requirements of the aerospace industry with retraining facilities. In recognizing that manpower need, the minister, along with the commission, has been working with the industry to identify precisely the future manpower required by occupation and time-frame.
With respect to Quebec, in 1978, the province of Quebec, the commission and nine Quebec members of the Air Industry Association of Canada jointly with their unions signed a manpower consultative agreement funded 25 per cent by the industry and 37.5 per cent by the federal and provincial governments respectively. This agreement has been renewed for the 1981-82 year. A survey and forecast of 50 occupations covering the period August, 1978, to December, 1982, was completed and published in November, 1978. The Quebec deputy minister of education has indicated to the Quebec aerospace companies that the survey results, which are updated each year, will be taken into consideration in the planning of technical courses at certain universities and community colleges.
It was as a result of the survey in Quebec and the other provinces that a manpower agreement was finally negotiated with the National Air Industries Association of Canada. While the commission's officers in the Quebec region will work closely with the province of Quebec in the implementation of the manpower agreement-and they have been doing this, Mr. Speaker-it is not yet known whether a formal agreement will be signed with the province of Quebec since the executive director of the commission's Quebec region, having just recently received the national agreement, has not yet had the opportunity to complete his plans for its implementation.


ENERGY-NEGOTIATIONS TO CONCLUDE ENERGY AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCES
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise to put forward some views I have on a question I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) on June 12, 1980. I took exception at that point to the reply I was given. I do not think it was adequate and at this time I would just like to read the reply the minister gave to a question I asked in which I pointed out that Alsands at Fort McMurray and the Imperial Oil Cold Lake project were in danger of being shelved and stopped. That was on June 12, 1980, over a year ago. I pointed out there would be a delay, and 1 pointed out the real cost not only to the Canadian economy but also to the small businessman in the communities of Fort McMurray, Cold Lake, Grand Centre, Bonnyville, and the surrounding areas as well as to people in Alberta generally but, more particularly, to the industrial areas of Ontario and Quebec. The minister said:
Adjournment Debate
Madam Speaker, I would only answer the hon. member by indicating that the federal government is ready to and has approved proceeding with those two plants. As a matter of fact, Petro-Canada, with Alberta Gas Trunk Line, has already come out with a proposal for another plant, a third plant. So the federal government is very supportive of the construction of more tar sand plants. The companies are ready to go ahead with those plants.
I am sure the minister did not mean to mislead the House, but that is what he most certainly did because the companies are not ready to proceed with those plants. Spokesmen for Alsands and Imperial Oil have stated emphatically, over and over again during the past year, that they will not proceed with the plants even if they have the approval of the Alberta government because a pricing regime has not been established for the production from the two megaprojects in northeastern Alberta.
I am alarmed that no one has taken these statements of the spokesmen of these companies seriously enough to approach this very critical problem. The government has established and said that it would offer to the oil sands plants, the megaprojects, a floor price of $38 per barrel and tie any further price increases to the consumer price index. The companies have stated emphatically-and I must agree with them on this point because I live in Fort McMurray and I understand what they are talking about-that the consumer price index, as it is measured across Canada, does not relate to the costs experienced in northeastern Alberta in communities such as Fort McMurray, Cold Lake, Grand Centre and Bonnyville. It does not reflect the production costs and the construction costs because of the high cost of living and the high cost of contruction experienced in those areas. All these factors add to the cost of producing the oil. It is much higher and continues to escalate much more rapidly than the consumer price index. It is based upon what could be called a construction price index or whatever, but it is there.
I feel the minister, perhaps inadvertently, misled the House when he said that Alberta Gas Trunk and Petro-Canada were ready to proceed with another plant. Certainly in committee I asked officials of Petro-Canada if they were going to proceed with the development of a tar sands plant in northeastern Alberta in the heavy oil and tar sands area. They answered emphatically that they were. I asked them when they would have the plant on construction and producing. The minimum time required was at least ten years. They said that they were ready to proceed immediately, but in fact they are not ready because it takes five years of intensive work on the site to test the site area, to test the way the bitumen lies in the sand and to test how they will mine it. It takes at least five years to do the necessary preparatory work before they can get on with the construction of the plant. So I take exception to those answers.
In the one minute remaining I should like to point out that the government is still dragging its feet on a very fundamental issue. It is obvious the government has taken the position that it will take control and be damned about a secure supply of energy. The tar sands are the one thing we have in Canada which will adequately secure the supply of oil to the rest of Canada. The government has taken the position that it will

July 6, 1981
Adjournment Debate
hold them back as long as it has to, that it is control it wants, and security of supply be damned. This is a miscarriage of justice for every man, woman and child in Canada.


Royce Herbert Frith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out two things to the hon. member opposite. First, I do not think the minister misled the hon. member in his reply on July 2. Second, I think to some extent the member himself is misleading the House when he states that the federal government at the present time has no consideration for tar sands development in western Canada.
It has always been a principle behind the National Energy Program to place heavy emphasis upon the development of the tar sands projects in western Canada. The hon. member pointed out rightly that in October, 1980, the minister was prepared to offer the sponsors of those projects $38 per barrel for their oil and in addition a cost of living indexation so that it would be that much more profitable for these companies to develop the tar sands projects.
On July 2 the minister mentioned in the House that in the last several months some statements were made by the people involved in resource development indicating that they were not willing to go ahead with that kind of a joint venture. The minister pointed out that after his meeting with the minister of energy for Alberta on June 29, the project sponsor confirmed that it had dropped all such threats and was encouraged by the significant progress being made in the present negotiations between Ottawa and Alberta. At that time the minister went on to explain to the hon. member opposite that they have had several meetings in the last five to six weeks concerning the energy pricing agreement. Both the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), and his provincial counterpart in Alberta felt that significant progress was being made in reaching an oil pricing agreement.
I want to point out to the hon. member, with respect to the development of the tar sands projects in October, 1980, when the minister offered $38 a barrel with this indexation clause, that it was the Province of Alberta, which under its jurisdiction has the right to grant the licence for the development of the tar sands project, that it was the Province of Alberta which halted it and said that it would have to be part of the whole package in terms of the oil pricing agreement. Thus, the federal government's position has always been clear. We place great emphasis on the need to develop the tar sands projects in western Canada. We feel very strongly that, given the size of those resources, they, in fact, will be very decisive in terms of the ability of Canada to become oil self-sufficient during this decade.
As the minister has pointed out, the tempo of negotiations has been stepped up, with the fourth meeting since May being scheduled within the next few weeks. The minister also wanted to make it known that he feels these are very productive meetings. There is an increasing optimism of a good resolution of these difficult and complex issues.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES-DANGERS OF USE OF MARIJUANA
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question on June 12, 1981 was directed to the Minister of National Research and Welfare (Miss Begin). It reads in part:
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?
In the answer given, the minister did not appear to put emphasis on the seriousness of the health dangers and hazardous effects involved with this drug and seemed to give priority to the legal injustices over the medical implications.
Marijuana is a very powerful agent which affects the body in many ways. A copious amount of scientific data has been accumulated in the period from 1975 to 1979. This data has been published in over 2500 scientific papers. Marijuana is unique in that it contains 60 chemicals called cannabinoids, which are not found anywhere else in nature. Of these 60, only five have been studied to any degree of completeness scientifically. The greatest and most intense work has been done on only one of these chemicals, namely, tetrahydro cannabinol, the most mind-altering chemical in marijuana. This drug has a tendency to seep into the fatty tissues of the body, including the brain. It is removed from the body slowly, requiring over 30 days to be completely excreted. Hence, many months are required before the body has totally recovered from the effects of this drug. Moreover, at the time of the LeDain report in the early 1970s, marijuana cigarettes had a THC potency of .5 per cent to 1 per cent. Today marijuana cigarettes contain a 3 per cent to 5 per cent concentration of this drug.
Recent research has shown that five marijuana cigarettes do as much damage as 112 ordinary tobacco cigarettes. Cigarettes containing marijuana have 50 per cent to 100 per cent more cancer producing drugs or chemicals than those of ordinary tobacco cigarettes. One third of the people smoking ordinary tobacco show an incidence of chronic cough and a predisposition to cancer as manifested by atypical cells in their sputum. However, with people smoking marijuana cigarettes, over 61 per cent show an incidence of a chronic cough and 100 per cent show atypical cells in their sputum, which is a step before a pre-cancerous change takes place in the lining of the airways.
Hard evidence is surfacing indicating that marijuana is far more dangerous to the health than suspected. At present, the scientific community is only in the preliminary stages of investigation. Not only does marijuana affect functioning of the body organs and systems but it also affects one's behaviour and performance.
In the field of driving skills, a 1974 British Columbia study has shown convincingly that subjects under the influence of cannabis showed impaired judgment in assessing traffic signals, and their response to rapidly changing environmental
July 6, 1981

situations and their ability to concentrate on driving was impaired.
In the United States post-mortem studies were carried out on drivers involved in traffic fatalities. It was found that 16 per cent of the drivers had used marijuana. This drug was second only to the use of alcohol as a factor in traffic fatalities. Current studies do not give a clear picture of the role played by marijuana in traffic accidents. In the hospitals of this country, it is impossible to assess the concentration of THC in blood by a rapid clinical test. Such a test has not yet been devised and is not available for clinical purposes. The assessment of the concentration of this drug in the blood necessitates a laborious clinical exercise carried out in a forensic laboratory. There is, therefore, a double standard in assessing impaired drivers. For those drivers suspected of being impaired by alcohol, there exists a test which gives a rapid, accurate and a precise indication of the concentration. However, there are no tests for those impaired by cannabis. The use of this drug can be discovered only by its odour, by previous contact with it, by training or by speculated guessing.
There is also considerable evidence suggesting the enhancing effect of cannabis on alcohol. The use of cannabis in combination with alcohol therefore presents another serious hazard in traffic safety. Alcohol is by far the most dangerous, best studied, most understood and publicly accepted intoxicant contributing to traffic accidents. Our knowledge of marijuana and its effects on car accidents is approximately 50 years behind that of alcohol and tobacco. But must we use the trial and error technique to establish its frightful role in traffic accidents and fatalities by allowing its more widespread use, by recommending what appear to be more relaxed marijuana laws, or should we be more cautious in changing any legislation until we really understand the part played by marijuana usage in the mounting traffic tolls?
Epidemiological studies on large segments of the population of users, such as have already been done in relation to alcohol and tobacco, are needed to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. It will take a generation or more of wide-ranging public health observations to provide a clear picture, especially among adolescents who are more susceptible to physical and mental changes due to rapid physiological and psychological development of their bodies.
In an atempt to correct legal injustice, let us not pave the road to greater assault on the body and mind of Canadians by facilitating the use of a powerful intoxicant such as marijuana which is not yet completely understood as far as its medical implications are concerned.


Royce Herbert Frith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps before
Adjournment Debate
getting into the technical response to the question asked by the hon. member, I want to point out that I think there is some confusion which is being created here by the government's intention to lessen the penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana. In fact, the rest of my response is predicated on the premise that if and when the government introduces the legislation, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is prepared to undertake a rather extensive training and educational program for the Canadian public, because I think that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is very much aware of some of the serious side effects that marijuana can, in fact, produce.
This is not to say that when the government introduces this type of legislation we as a government are condoning the use of marijuana; we are simply becoming cognizant of the fact that there are significant numbers of young people in this country who have permanent criminal records because of very small quantities of marijuana being found in their possession. The government intends to continue going after the importers and traffickers of large amounts of marijuana as rigorously as it does under the present legislation.
I want to point out to the hon. member that the minister is aware of studies that have taken place all over the world regarding the side effects of marijuana. As a medical practitioner, I am sure he is aware that the Minister of National Health and Welfare recognizes that the regular use of marijuana, for example, can be as carcinogenic as any other kind of tobacco use; that we are aware that the use of marijuana, for example, can rapidly increase the heart rate of cardiovascular patients; that we are aware that marijuana used by very young people can change the hormonal balance; that there is growing evidence that it has some teratogenic side effects; that its use is not condoned by the government for young people or pregnant women.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has a responsibility to teach the Canadian public about the health hazards of marijuana. If and when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) introduces the legislation, the Minister of National Health and Welfare will undertake a program of education in collaboration with a number of the provinces and territories which are very anxious to jointly sponsor projects with the federal government. These would explain to the Canadian public the health hazards associated with marijuana.
I want to conclude by saying that it is very important that the public know the federal government does not condone the

July 6, 1981
Adjournment Debate
use of marijuana but realizes that it is a fact of life in the country. If people are going to use marijuana, then I think an educational program should be undertaken by the federal and provincial governments that would adequately explain the health hazards associated with its use.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At 10.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, July 7, 1981