1984-05-18

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
33 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
LIBRARY OF PARLIaSF] *	CANADA
|
2® 1989 I
I	f
[Stage Direction]
{SIBLIOTHEquE DU PADUMcm, I
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 18, 1984


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in which he assured us that he would cap interest rates at 12 per cent should he become the next Prime Minister. He said:
You have to have more stability in the interest rates to build the kind of confidence necessary for people to take the bold step into new ventures that they have on the drafting board ready to go.
In light of that statement, I am very upset and anxious to know why the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for the Farm Credit Corporation, has allowed the interest rate charged by the Farm Credit Corporation to rise from 12.75 per cent in April, 1983, to 14 per cent on April 9 of this year. Why will the Minister not honour his word, and cap interest rates at 12 per cent?
Not only are the interest rates set at 14 per cent but the Farm Credit Corporation has seen fit to change the method it uses to commute loan payments. It is now calculating the compound interest semi-annually rather than annually, which once again robs more money from the already struggling farmers. For example, on a $100,000 mortgage with interest calculated annually, interest payments amount to $15,098. The same interest payment calculated semi-annually, as is being done by the Farm Credit Corporation, amounts to $15,526. The additional cost to the farmer calculated over a 20-year period is $8,500 in interest.
The Minister of Agriculture is condoning this sneaky, underhanded method of squeezing even more money from the already distressed farmers. This terrible treatment of farmers is coming from a man who claims to be such a great benefactor of the farming community. This is just another example of how the present federal Government has treated the farmers of Canada, and really shows us just how much the Minister of Agriculture cares about Canadian farmers.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents, in fact, one of my friends recently received a letter from the Progressive Conservative Party, inviting him to contribute at least $100 or more. In doing so, he would become a member of the "select" club of friends of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and enjoy special privileges. Those privileges, as indicated in the letter, would include: frequent meetings with the Leader, a limited number of members in the club. He would also have the privilege of having his name appear on a special list of donors.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Leader of the Official Opposition would care to inform the House, for the benefit of all Canadians, what exactly a special donors' list is. Perhaps he could also tell us whether this donors' list will be administered by the Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).



RAILWAYS


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the continuing derailments, and accidents on our roads, streets, highways and railways are a constant reminder of the dangers inherent in the transportation of dangerous substances. To underscore the concern shared by local governments, I call attention to a resolution presented by the Chilliwack, British Columbia, District Council to the Lower Mainland Municipal Association. That resolution reads as follows:
* Whereas the national railways are undertaking major track upgrading programs;
And whereas existing mainlines often pass through urban areas with consequent risks associated with hazardous material transport, contributing to traffic problems at level crossings, and creating dust and noise nuisances;
And whereas rail corridors in rural areas can diminish the above problems and reduce infrastructure costs borne by local governments;
Therefore be it resolved that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities request the Government of Canada to provide incentives to encourage the national railways or other rail carriers to bypass urban areas where feasible, in conjunction with twin tracking and other upgrading programs, and where not feasible, for the railways to provide a greater share of the funding for grade separation.
In order that the objectives of this resolution as it affects the residents of the District of Chilliwack and other areas may be


realized,, I urge that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and the Minister of State for Social Development accede to a request to meet with representatives of the District of Chilliwack to hear their representations and render all possible assistance in resolving this problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



PUBLIC WEAL


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in a very threatening situation at the Quebec National Assembly, the Sergeant-at-Arms, Rene Jalbert, approached the still armed assailant and in a four-hour dialogue persuaded the gunman to surrender. This feat of heroism on the part of the Quebec Sergeant-at-Arms merits not only the publicity that it now receives but should be carefully documented so that, in years to come, the story of his actions will be remembered.
Major Jalbert's heroism is an accomplishment which has been immediately recognized and applauded by all Canadians. However, Canadians should also recognize and remember the men and women who have gained national stature through their accomplishments in science, the humanities, and medical and industrial research. These individuals, when they receive any public notice, are usually given one-shot general media recognition, after which their accomplishments are buried in anonymity. This is due partly to modesty and restraint on the part of the individuals involved, and to the failure of the media to appreciate the true status and significance of the contributions these individuals make to our nation.
There is a need for Government and appropriate national and provincial professional and non-professional organizations to promote the accomplishments of deserving Canadians in their fields of expertise and to keep these celebrated names in the forefront of public attention in order to inspire and encourage young Canadians to excel in fields other than sports and rock music. In this manner, many outstanding scientists, courageous and brave military and rescue workers, and accomplished authors will, in due course, become better known nationally-
[DOT] imo)


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, there are many important and useful changes in the Govern-
May 18, 1984
ment's amendments to the Canada Labour Code which were tabled this week. Many of these improvements had been proposed by the New Democratic Party for months, and even for years.
One such change which we have been calling for is contained in Clause 2 of the Bill, and provides for the elimination of the rules which say that handicapped people may be paid less than the minimum wage. This was an attack both on the dignity of handicapped people and on their economic ability to survive and function as independent members of our society.
The New Democratic Party urges the Government to bring this legislation forward quickly so it may be passed. It will be a cruel joke on Canada's disabled if the Government has presented this Bill to the House for no other reason than electioneering, with no intention at all of passing the Bill. The Government is in a rush to pass legislation which will help banks. Over the next few weeks we will see if it is willing to do as much to help Canada's disabled.



MAGNITUDE OF ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, reports from the RCMP estimate that Canadians consumed $9.4 billion worth of illicit drugs, mainly cannabis, heroin, and cocaine, in 1982. The RCMP states that these figures are probably low. If the indicated figures are nearly factual, illegal drugs would account for about 5 per cent of all consumer spending in Canada, or nearly 3 per cent of the Gross National Product for that year. The RCMP have indications that this percentage is rising.
What must be the horrendous cost in human suffering and damage to our society? How is the economy to sustain strains such as these? The continued growth in drug production, and the massive profits which illegal drug traffic generates, give a relative growth and assistance to organized crime to flourish in our country.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we must continue to make every possible effort to curb and curtail this traffic, not only by enforcement of strict law, but by education of our youth. We must make it clear to all our citizens, and especially our youth, the damage which can befall their bodies, their systems, and the damage which the residue of these substances in their systems can cause to their progeny.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is without a doubt one of the leading mining nations of the world. Why, therefore, are we doing so poorly in the
May 18, 1984

production of mining equipment? We are importing machinery for our own mines when we should be a leading exporter.
Oral Questions POLITICAL PARTIES



LIBERAL PARTY'S SOLICITATION OF FUNDS FROM JUDGES

[Stage Direction]
Unlike countries such as Finland and Sweden, we have failed to capitalize on domestic markets, failed to devote sufficient research and development effort to mining technology, and failed to seek out export opportunities. When the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt was Minister of State for Mines there was some sign of movement. Since she left that portfolio, however, nothing seems to have happened.
A few Canadian companies have proven that it is possible to be successful in this field. Let mining companies and equipment manufacturers put more effort into developing new and more efficient tools so that Canada can recapture its fair share of the domestic and world market for mining equipment.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the matter of the grant to the Italian Alliance of Toronto. This was a grant of $583,000 given to them by the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
There was a political group formed in Toronto in 1983 of prominent Liberals who were seeking money to organize the Italian community for the Liberal Party. The same group of people formed a society. They received a grant for what they wanted, for a store front office, and so on. I raised complaints in the House of Commons. The Italian community raised complaints about this grant. The Minister said at the time that he did not know the politics of the people involved, in spite of the fact that he was chief political Minister for Toronto. So he was either corrupt or he was incompetent.
The Minister met with the Italian community. He was going to cut the grant to one-third. He said: "But you figure it out for yourself. You talk to Mr. Joseph Volpe. Mr. Volpe said, of course: "Don't cut the grant". We warned at the time that the group could be used for political purposes, or at the very least, it gave a bad smell to the affair. So what happens? We find now that 25 delegates have been delivered by Mr. Volpe to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
[DOT] (MI5)
If this were the United States, Mr. Speaker, the Minister would be gone. We have a docile press in Canada, with a few exceptions, which is not really reporting this properly. We are seeing the sleezy Liberal Party whose candidate for the new Liberalism, the Gary Hart candidate, is buying 25 delegates with $583,000 of our money.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, we know the Government has always felt it had a special relationship with judges. Witness the fact that their telephone directories are always conveniently handy. The latest is a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), sent not only to a judge but to a judge at his court chambers. The letter says in part:
I have enclosed a special letter from Liberal Party treasurer, Gordon Dry-den-
That special letter is four pages of paranoia. It says in part:
We must not let the politics of selfishness and fear leave us helpless in the years ahead-casting aside our concern for our neighbour, grabbing whatever we can for ourselves.
There is a P.S.:
Remember your contribution to the Liberal Party entitles you to a tax credit of up to 75 per cent and the pride in knowing that you have come to the aid of Canada in her time of great need.
Mr. Speaker, I can understand the paranoia of the Liberal Party treasurer because it is difficult for them to raise money. I can understand their desire to raise money, but please, in the process, leave the judges alone.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on mortgage interest rates for the Minister of State for Finance. Yesterday a major Canadian bank announced its new rate for a five-year residential mortgage would be 14.5 per cent. Everyone in the real estate industry knows a rate higher than 14 per cent is a serious danger signal. Home owners cannot make the higher payments, those seeking homes cannot afford to build or buy, construction stops, and jobs are lost.
What is the Government's policy on mortgage interest rates? Has the Government turned its back on the four million Canadian families who must face higher mortgage payments? The Government promised interest rates would be made in Canada for Canadians. Will the Minister now admit that this is another broken promise?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite has expressed a concern that any of us would share if we saw evidence of a major increase in interest rates in Canada. We do not see that evidence. Indeed, if the Member were to consider yesterday's developments, he would recall that the bank rate declined yesterday. While fluctuations will occur, the bank rate is today

May 18, 1984
Oral Questions
at 11.63 per cent, whereas it was 11.72 per cent last week. That will bring benefits in terms of mortgage and other interest rates in the Canadian economy.
The Eton. Member also fails to recall that it is the Government s intention, as outlined in the February Budget, to introduce a mortgage rate protection plan. We intend to introduce the legislation shortly to implement that plan and, as I have indicated to the House on several occasions, it will be effective as of last March 1. The rates that will be insured will be those at which a mortgage was either taken out or renewed from March 1 forward.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite will probably be aware that it is the Government's intention to introduce a mortgage backed security plan which can, in our view, do a significant amount to reintroduce longer term mortgages into the Canadian mortgage market. We anticipate the mortgage backed security plan will enhance the possibilities of ten-year mortgages in Canada in the future.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, it is evident the Minister is going to put out a forest fire with a bucket of water.


EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Howard Edward Crosby: 1 am interested in the fact that the Minister does not seem to think a mortgage interest rate of 14.5 per cent is a serious problem. I would like to remind him of November 6, 1979, when the current Minister of Transport said that with a mortgage interest rate of 13.5 per cent 800,000 Canadian families could not afford a home. On November 6, 1979, the current President of the Treasury Board said that a mortgage interest rate of 13.5 per cent was taking us into unchartered economic waters and would lead to disaster.
There are 1.5 million people unemployed in Canada, Mr. Speaker. There are another one million people who are employed part-time in jobs below their levels of qualification. Yet the Government of Canada is spending public funds on construction projects in its Special Recovery Capital Program to the extent of $2 billion. With a mortgage interest rate of 14.5 per cent, jobs will be lost in the construction industry because people will not build houses with that kind of a rate.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please ask a question?


Howard Edward Crosby: How does he justify the policy of spending money on government construction, and stopping jobs in the housing industry?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member opposite should be aware that in fact housing starts averaged 162,000 units in 1983, which was almost a 30 per cent increase from the average in the previous year. In the first four months of this year housing starts averaged 140,000 units, which was a 6.3 per cent increase over the fourth quarter of 1983. I think the Hon.
Member opposite would want to recognize that in fact domestic construction has been going forward at levels substantially above those of recent years.
With regard to the level of interest rates in Canada, and particularly mortgage interest rates, obviously none of us are happy with that situation. However, as discussions in the House over the past several weeks have indicated, interest rates in Canada are, to a substantial degree, a result of interest rate levels in the United States. The American interest rates have increased over the past two months as a result of very large increases in government borrowing to finance a structural deficit of unparallelled proportions in the United States, and due to demands from the private sector during a period of economic growth. Those two pressures have combined to drive up interest rates in the United States. Due to our large volume of trade and an open money market with the United States, those upward pressures on interest rates inevitably spill over into Canada.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for the economic lecture, but I want to talk about people.


MORTGAGE RATE PROTECTION PLAN
Howard Edward Crosby: Home owners faced with a 3 per cent or 4 per cent increase in their mortgages will be faced with an additional monthly payment of $100 or more. Where are they going to get the money? The Government says it has a mortgage protection plan. It advertised it in the newspapers on April 10. One and one-half months later we still have not seen the Bill. For the benefit of all those Canadians facing higher mortgage payments, can the Minister tell us when we are going to see this protection plan? You have the ads. Where is the Bill?


An Hon. Member:: Where's the beef?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Where's the baloney?


An Hon. Member:: Here it comes.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member opposite and his Party would no doubt endorse the general government policy of consulting with the private sector to the maximum degree possible on programs and policies which are going to have a significant impact on the private sector.
After we made the announcement in the Budget of the mortgage rate protection plan, we did two things. We undertook extensive consultations with consumers, companies financing mortgages, the construction industry, and a range of other entities interested in the mortgage market. At the same time we undertook to make the program, when it is introduced, retroactive to March 1, immediately following the Budget. Any Canadian who chooses to participate in the program will be able to do so from March 1 at the rate of mortgage interest which applied at the time when he or she either took out a new mortgage or renewed an older mortgage.
May 18, 1984


An Hon. Member:: There's the baloney.


Roy MacLaren: That is the situation. We shall have a program in place retroactively to March 1 as soon as we introduce the legislation, which I anticipate will be within the next few days.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the President of the Treasury Board, as he is ultimately responsible for all costs relative to government expenditures. As he knows, the Petrochemical Task Force Report came down three months ago and work is being done on it, but at a very slow pace. There are over 200,000 jobs at stake. There is a city in southwestern Ontario that is very concerned about the situation. Does the President of the Treasury Board endorse the policy to reduce the cost of natural gas and natural gas liquids to the Gulf Gate rate?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this Government is very interested in the well-being of the eastern petrochemical industry. This is demonstrated by such initiatives as the pipeline between Sarnia and Montreal, and a number of other initiatives. I can assure my hon. friend that we are giving very serious attention to the report. It has some very broad ramifications.
I must say that if the friends of the Conservatives, the provincial Governments of western Canada, and particularly Alberta, had not taken certain actions, some of the studies we are carrying out with respect to the task force report, in my view, would not have been necessary. I think my hon. friend ought to direct some of his questions to his own colleagues in western Canada as well as to ourselves.
With respect to a detailed response, I think he should address the question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who, I am sure, will be happy to respond as soon as we finish our consideration.


Thomas Scott Fennell: It is fine to build pipelines, but if you put a product through that pipeline that is uneconomical as far as the petrochemical industry is concerned, it does not provide the benefit to create jobs.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, considering that $2 billion of exports are derived from the petrochemical industry and that there are $600,000 in rubber tire exports indirectly from this industry, will the Minister take a firm stand to reduce the cost of natural gas and natural gas liquids by at least 15 per cent, and preferably to the Gulf Gate rate?
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that questions of this sort should be addressed to the responsible Ministers. In this case it is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mr. Nielsen:: Where is he?


An Hon. Member:: They are never here.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I think the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion also has a role.


Mr. Crosbie:: Where is the responsible Minister?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: My hon. friends ask where they are. Where are all the people sitting on your side? Where is your Leader, for example?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Down in Windsor.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In any event, I want to confirm to my hon. friend the great interest that the Government has in the well-being of the eastern petrochemical industry. In that regard we have the benefit of the very firm views of the Hon. Member for Sarnia. Many of the things my hon. friend is saying, which he has just learned of, have been put forward very effectively by the Hon. Member for Sarnia. With his interest and support I am confident that we will make the right decision in the best interest of the petrochemical industry and its workers.
 * *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of International Trade. I am sure he must be aware, as we all are, of the events in the Strait of Hormuz and the potential threats to the oil supply to the western world. Would he inform the House whether he has been in touch with the Canadian embassies in the area, and can he give us any further information on the damage to the ships there? Has the Government been in touch with the Government of the United States concerning the strategic reserves of the United States in particular, and of Canada?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, of course the Hon. Member touches on a very serious threat to world peace, the escalation of the conflict between Iran and Iraq down in the Gulf with the interference with tankers in that area. It is true that attacks have occurred on ships in that region and that this could pose a threat to the shipment of oil from an area that provides in excess of one-quarter of the world's oil supply. Actually only about 3.5 per cent of Canada's oil supplies came from that area as of 1979, of which the percentage has been tending downward since that time with Canada's temporary self-sufficiency in oil. We do

May 18, 1984
Oral Questions
technically import some oil into Canada on the East Coast while we are able to do some exporting from the West Coast.
I see no short-term threat in relation to oil supplies as a consequence of the problem in the area. First, there are very substantial reserves around the world at the present time. There is, as the Hon. Member states, an international organizational agency that provides for a sharing scheme, of which this scheme can be triggered if a shortage occurs. That further protects our interest.
I want to say that we are concerned from the point of view of urging and supporting other nations in opposing the spreading of the conflict. We, of course, have an export embargo on arms and war supplies to both Iran and Iraq. We certainly join with other nations in doing everything to prevent the spread of the conflict.


FORECAST OF OIL SUPPLY SHORTAGES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, let me warn the Minister of International Trade, and bring to his attention the possibility of an oil crisis in Canada in the near future. Perhaps he will be interested to know that at the recent National Energy Board hearings-the Energy Board is to give a report on Canada's oil supply and self-sufficiency in a few weeks-Shell Canada maintained that the last year for Canada's self-sufficiency will be 1985, and that imports will be necessary after that until the year 2000. The reason is mainly that the Hibernia and the Beaufort Sea Supplies will not come on stream until 1997. That will leave us a shortfall, or an oil gap if you like, between 1985 and the 1990s of 600,000 barrels a day. What plans does the Government have to fill this oil gap in the event of a potential crisis for Canada?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to confirm the exact statistics which the Hon. Member presents, as being totally authentic. I do agree it is quite possible that there would be an interim period before new major oil supplies come on stream when Canada could be a net importer, but not to the same degree as we were a few years ago. The dependence on imported oil would be on a much smaller basis. In the meantime we are self-sufficient. I think our needs, if we do encounter the necessity of importing, can very well be managed from those sources with which, through Petro-Canada and through private oil companies, we have ongoing contractual relationships.


HIBERNIA OIL FIELD AND ALBERTA TAR SANDS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister for International Trade a further question with respect to this potential oil gap, which Shell Canada calls a real oil gap, in the near future.
The Minister must be aware that the two great areas for oil in Canada are Hibernia, and a place where we have Saudi Arabian type oil, namely the tar sands which are located in the western provinces.
I want to ask the Minister a question with respect to these two areas. First, concerning Hibernia. Could the Minister indicate to the House whether he feels we are in a position where we have put the political disputes behind us so we can get on with the development of Hibernia? Second, with respect to the tar sands, given that the Albertan economy is so down right now, would the Minister be prepared to recommend to the Cabinet that there be a national effort, a commitment now, to develop the enhanced oil recovery and the tar sands projects of Alberta?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Member is taking me beyond the jurisdiction of the Department of External Affairs and into the field of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I will respond to the extent that it relates to the necessity for importation and to the extent it affects exports. There is no question but that Hibernia is a tremendous future source of hydrocarbons for the Canadian economy, and that the tar sands are a treasure trove for present and future generations in this country. But I do not think the Hon. Member should underestimate the potential for additional oil recovery in many areas-perhaps on a smaller basis in any one area, but in many areas of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I think he will find, with the passage of time, that we will have many sources of production in those provinces beyond those that already exist. Of course there is also the potential for increased gas production from the Member's own province.


John Carnell Crosbie: Order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It is also interesting to contemplate the ways in which gas may be used as a substitute for oil in subsequent times.


John Carnell Crosbie: Gas is being used now.


ESTIMATES
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister for External Relations in his capacity as the Acting Prime Minister. It is appreciated that the President of the Treasury Board told us to ask questions of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The problem is that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, after setting May 24 as the day on which he would be before committee, is now refusing to appear before any of the estimates committee meetings prior to May 31 when Estimates must be reported to the House. Is there any way in which his senior colleague in the Cabinet can bring the
May 18, 1984

Minister to fulfil his duties, for which he is being paid an extra $30,000 annually, and report to the committee?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the proposition. I do not know about it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why can you not accept it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I doubt very much whether the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources implied that he would refuse to go to committee. However, I will make absolutely sure of that
as soon as I can.


EXAMINATION OF ESTIMATES
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, after checking with the clerk of the committee, the executive assistant to the Minister, and with David Zussman in the Minister's office-and although I warned them yesterday that I would be asking a question of this nature today and asked them to get back to me because I did not want to make it difficult at this time of the Liberal leadership Campaign-I find nobody can confirm that the Minister will be around to come to the committee to defend his Department's estimates. We are concerned about Petro-Canada, the Beaufort Sea discussions, and all the various areas of the national energy policy. Could the Minister make an effort and report back on Tuesday as to whether a date has been found on which the Minister could come and be examined?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, again I cannot accept the postulate, but I will discuss it with my colleague and make sure that he is available next week.


SHOE IMPORT QUOTAS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. There has been extensive media coverage on the shoe quotas which are due to expire on November 30. I understand the Minister met with industry representatives last Monday and confirmed to them that the shoe quotas would be extended for another 18 to 24 months beyond November 30. Based on this information, many people engaged in the shoe business are making commercial decisions anticipating and announcement which the Minister has promised for next Tuesday. Will the Minister confirm that he will be announcing next Tuesday an extension of shoe quotas for an additional 18 to 24 months, or is it his intention to abolish the shoe quotas?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I will make an announcement as soon as Cabinet finalizes its considerations with reference to the course that will be taken on the quantitative restrictions for shoes. That
Oral Questions
matter will be before Cabinet again on Tuesday morning. It is quite possible that the matter will be concluded at that time, but I cannot give the Hon. Member an absolute assurance. I am anxious to have a firm position at the earliest possible date so that shoe manufacturers, importers, retailers and others involved in the trade can make their plans accordingly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for External Relations. The Minister is aware that in Montreal, on May 29 and 30, the Government of Quebec will host a summit conference on Quebec in the World. Since this summit conference may be expected to focus as well on federal authority as it complements that of the Government of Quebec, could the Minister inform the House what the federal Government's intentions are about participating in this event and the conditions for that participation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we have indeed been invited to participate in this event and also that we have agreed with the topics to be discussed, provided we can also agree on the conditions for federal participation. I think my hon. friend will agree with our proposal, which is that since the federal Government has most of the responsibility in this area, it cannot be treated as just another participant, like the co-operative movement, for instance.
Thus, we are trying to reach agreement with the Government of Quebec on having a position at least equal to theirs in this seminar or mini-summit. We are negotiating with the Government of Quebec about this problem. I wrote a letter to Mr. Landry this morning, to get us a little further down the road towards a consensus.


OHO)   HOUSING REQUEST THAT MINISTER PERSUADE BANKS TO ROLL BACK MORTGAGE INTEREST INCREASES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for housing. Despite a marginal drop in the central bank rate yesterday, the Toronto-Dominion Bank increased its one-year mortgage rate by one-half per cent. It has gone up by 2.5 per cent since January 1, from 1(M to 123/4 per cent. That means the average

May 18, 1984
Presence in Gallery
mortgage has increased by $40,000 over a 25-year period, which puts housing out of reach of ordinary people. Does the Minister intend to use his good offices to try to persuade the bank to roll back interest rates so that ordinary people can afford to buy housing?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, obviously it is in everybody's interest for us to have access to many markets and many sources of mortgage money, not only one, two, or three major institutions. I will be very much interested in knowing what the Hon. Member's Party intends to do when we bring in the mortgage protection plan. If, as I am informed, they intend to oppose it, I wonder what they offer those Canadians who, since March 1, have known that they could have access to an insurance plan which could go a long way to protect them against unexpected rises in interest rates.


REQUEST THAT INTEREST RATES BE SET AT REASONABLE LEVEL
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister failed to answer my question. Perhaps I may ask a supplementary? As the Minister is aware, during the sixties Parliament set the mortgage rate at 6 per cent. Could the Minister inform the House whether he is prepared to do the same? In other words, is he prepared to introduce a Bill, setting the mortgage rate at a reasonable level for the average Canadian, since today, Canadians do not have the money to buy a home?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on these matters, but it does seem to me that since we have access to a certain amount of money, by the savings of Canadians, and since these savings can be invested in either financial institutions or mortgages, the effect of the Hon. Member's proposal would be that the money available for residential mortgages would soon be exhausted. I would like to hear what the Hon. Member has to suggest as an alternative solution.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF UNDER-SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF INFORMATION OF KUWAIT
Mr. Speaker:: May I call to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Sheikh Nasser Mohamed Al-Ahmed Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Information of Kuwait, as well as Chairman of the Petroleum Information Committee of the Arab Gulf States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Several weeks ago Senator Jack Austin made a speech in Vancouver in which he said that a West Coast fisheries Bill was imminent and that he expected it to be passed speedily by this House. That was several weeks ago. These rumours are not new. They have been going around for many weeks. Will a West Coast fisheries Bill be introduced during this session and, if so, when?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that my hon. friend has put that question to me. I am very optimistic that I will be able to table a Bill in the very near future. I am having last-minute consultations. If they are fruitful, I will be able to come forward with a policy that I hope the Hon. Member will be able to support. Next week I intend to have consultations with the Government of British Columbia to secure its support. After that, hopefully, the House will give the green light to this new policy.


TIMING OF IMPLEMENTATION
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, if this Bill does come before us, to what degree will its provisions be applicable during this season's venture, or will the provisions of the Bill not apply until sometime in the future, perhaps as long away as a year from now?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is unwise to start unravelling the whole Bill today before Hon. Members. However, I can say this to my hon. friend. My objective is to relieve the pressure caused by the over-capacity of the fleet as quickly as possible. If the negotiations going on at the moment are fruitful, and I have the support of the Hon. Member, I hope that within this calendar year we can resolve a great part of the problem of over-capacity. That is, of course, if I have the co-operation of all the different players.

[ Translation]


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the Canada Post Corporation. Could the Minister inform the House what the situation is with respect to the Corporation's well-known plan to act as a middleman, or should I say promoter, for a company called Consumers Distributing? Does the Canada Post Corporation intend to extend this pilot project to the entire country? If it does, we
May 18, 1984

are going to declare war on the Corporation. If it does not, does it intend to axe this project?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the President of the Canada Post Corporation appeared yesterday before a Parliamentary Committee, where the matter was discussed and where the Corporation promised to submit a full report on this pilot project within the coming weeks.
I am also aware that the Canada Post Corporation intends to issue a press release within the next few days, if not hours, regarding this pilot project.
As for the agreement between the Canada Post Corporation and Consumers Distributing, I have been informed that both parties have agreed to terminate the project on June 29, 1984, in all post offices where the pilot project is being tested.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. I draw to his attention a letter he received from the Programme D'Echange Etudiants du Canada, exchange programs in which all Members of Parliament have been involved at one time or another. We feel they are very worth while. They have been asking for seed money for some considerable time; I understand for a total of about 14 years. Will the Minister reconsider this request because money spent on this type of program is far more beneficial than putting together brochures with pictures of Liberal Members of Parliament and handing them out to their constituents on the South Shore?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has mentioned one of my Department's most important programs, which is aimed at increasing Canadians' knowledge of this country, and its various regions. The Student Exchange Program of Canada has been in existence for many years and has been very successful. We turn down nearly as many requests as we accept, owing to the tremendous popularity of this program. This group, which has received money in past years, will also be receiving offers of financing, depending on the financial resources made available to us by Parliament and on the number of applications we receive. I would therefore urge all young people who wish to participate in the program to file an application, because in doing so they will not only be helping us to help them know their country better, but they will also realize the diversity of Canadian culture and understand how Canada's cultural resources are a part of our Canadian identity.
Oral Questions


THE CENSUS
Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister who is covering for Statistics Canada. Recommendation 24 of the report Equality Now recommends that in the 1986 mini-census, and in the 1991 Census, Statistics Canada should include the requisite additional questions to elicit accurate information regarding visible minorities and that these questions should be accompanied by an appropriate explanation. I am wondering if we could have a response from the Minister to indicate what action is being taken on this particular recommendation contained in the Equality Now report, and if he could indicate what the current status is of the 1986 Census.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I see that there is no one volunteering to answer the question, so I will take notice of it.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances it is difficult to have a supplementary question if the Minister is just taking notice of it. However, if the Hon. Member feels that he has a legitimate supplementary question, I will hear him.


DATA ON RELIGION
Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if I may ask the Minister who is covering for Statistics Canada and is taking notice of my question to find out why the questions related to the religion module are being dropped, or are proposed to be dropped by Statistics Canada, when the recommendations contained in the Equality Now report recommended the recognition of all cultural groups. As well, our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the freedom of religion. I do not feel that this kind of action on the part of Statistics Canada can be justified.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to add a religious dimension to my inquiry.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General who will know that Wayne Boden was convicted partly on the basis of evidence provided by Calgarians. In return for giving evidence, the lives of those Calgarians were threatened. I would like the Minister to give us some indication of what steps his Department took to warn those witnesses that Wayne Boden was loose and what

May 18, 1984
Oral Questions
steps, if any, it took to provide them with extra protection while Wayne Boden was loose?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to look into the circumstances of the matter so that I could give the Hon. Member a fuller report. Of course Mr. Boden was released on an escorted temporary absence and it was the intention that he be under surveillance for the entire time that he was out of the prison. As Hon. Members know, unfortunately he escaped from custody and was at large in the Montreal area for a period of 36 hours. However, I will look into the circumstances to see if I can provide the Hon. Member with more details.
In the mean time I know that the Hon. Member will be interested to know, and to tell the concerned citizens of Calgary, that at twelve o'clock today I will be presenting a change in policy to the Correctional Service and to the National Parole Board, to provide greater control in circumstances where escorted temporary absences are granted, or may be granted, to offenders like Mr. Boden.


Mr. Speaker:: Could the Hon. Member make his a short supplementary question? There are several other Hon. Members whom I am trying to recognize.


TEMPORARY ABSENCES-POLICY STATEMENT
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister make that statement in the House in a statement on Motions? Will the Minister give us some indication of what the Departmental policy is? Witnesses are frequently threatened, and prisoners do escape. When prisoners escape, what is departmental policy on warning those witnesses, and what is the departmental policy on providing them with some protection?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in the event of escapes it is the policy of the Correctional Service of Canada to warn police departments in areas to which there is reason to believe that the fugitives may go. It is then left to the police departments in those areas to take appropriate steps like those described by the Hon. Member.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for External Relations. The Minister will know that a directive has been issued by the American Government which states that, as of May 24, no defence contracts for forgings are to be let to Canadian companies. This ruling affects at least six companies in Canada, including Port Col-borne Forgings which is in my riding, and could cause the loss of at least 25 jobs there. I wonder what the Minister has done about that matter.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, the question of the participation of Canadian firms is one that has been brought to the attention of the Government, and representations have been made to the Americans on the subject. It was one of those situations in which the general ruling was not aimed at Canada but could affect Canada, and I am very hopeful that the matter will be remedied shortly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It is understood that the United States will be seeking support for its $10 billion space station initiative at the upcoming London Economic Summit. Of course, President Reagan has already invited Canada's participation in this project.
Will the Acting Prime Minister confirm that President Reagan has written to the Prime Minister in recent weeks requesting Canada's support at the London Economic Summit for this initiative, and will he indicate the nature of the Prime Minister's response to the President of the United States? Was his answer to the President yes, or no?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unwise to comment on possible subjects that may be raised or may not be raised at the Summit meeting in London. Such meetings are usually preceded by an extensive discussion among the participants on what subjects should be debated. I assume that my hon. friend knows that it would be better for all of us to wait until the discussion takes place and not get involved in what subjects are to be discussed and what subjects will be accepted or eliminated.


IMMIGRATION
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Is the Minister prepared to change the practice of having visitors' visas automatically refused to applicants who have recently applied unsuccessfully for landed immigrant status by substituting the practice of having each application assessed individually on its merits?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to reflect on the suggestion that has been made to us by the Hon. Member.
May 18, 1984


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that posed by the Hon. Member for Calgary West, and is directed to the Solicitor General. From the Solicitor General's answer, am I to understand that the program for escorted temporary absences, which allows dangerous criminals like murderers and rapists to use their credit cards to buy beer at the local beer parlour during temporary absences, will continue?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, no dangerous offenders are released on escorted temporary absences for re-socialization purposes. They may be excused to go to hospital for an operation, or they may be excused under close escort on a humanitarian basis to attend a funeral or something of that nature. However, relating to the type of socialization absence that was granted in Mr. Boden's case, it was the opinion of the Correctional Service of Canada that Mr. Boden was no longer a dangerous offender. My concern about that was that I felt inadequate attention was paid to the risks to society, which are the concern of the Parole Board in deciding whether or not inmates are to be released. Therefore, one minute early, I am glad to inform the Hon. Member through you, Mr. Speaker, that the new policy will require that the input of the National Parole Board be obtained before offenders can-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has indicated that he will make a statement later. The Chair would like to recognize one or two other Members.


FISHERIES
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In the 1984 Atlantic Salmon Management Plan the Minister is asking both sports fishermen and commercial fishermen to make great sacrifices for the sake of rebuilding stocks. He is also aware that there is a tremendous enforcement problem with the salmon management program. Under this new program we can expect a rise in black market prices for salmon, which will be a great incentive for over-fishing and poaching. The situation could easily get out of control because the resources are not available for enforcement. What plans, if any, does the Minister have to improve the enforcement program this year? How can he assure the fishermen who abide by the rules of the new program that their sacrifices will not be offset by greater profits for poachers?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member agrees that the situation is very serious and that the salmon river systems in
Oral Questions
New Brunswick as well as in Quebec and Nova Scotia are really well below their potential. That is why the salmon management plan which I have decided upon this year is one that is in accord with the Muir Report. That report has recommended draconian measures to save the resource. One of the segments of that plan is the release of over 80,000 kilos of salmon from the Atlantic area to the mainland. That should help.
The Hon. Member has referred to poaching, which is certainly a very serious problem. My opinion, as a Member of Parliament for an area which has salmon rivers, is that poaching is not only the responsibility of the state and the Department; it also is the responsibility of the community. People in those communities know who are the poachers. It is their duty as citizens to help our enforcement people. It is a futile exercise to add hundreds and hundreds of enforcement people. If the money is available, of course I will do that, but I think the best tool is the co-operation of the citizens, and 99 per cent of them are law abiding.


POSSIBLE IMPACT OF UNITED STATES OIL LEASE PROGRAM ON WEST COAST FISHERY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He will know that a note was delivered last week to the State Department in Washington regarding oil leasing lands off the coast of the Alaska Panhandle. I was wondering if the Minister was informed of that note prior to its presentation and, if not, why not. Did he make representations in order that the environmental and fisheries concerns of Canada would be taken into account in the formulation of that note? I would also like a copy of the note presented to the House.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend will have to take my word for it that decisions made by our Government are decisions that involve all Departments and which are supported by all of us. The Hon. Member may rest assured that the policy that was announced is the Government's official policy.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has gone beyond the hour which is normally permitted and has tried to recognize a number of Members with difficult supplementaries. The Hon. Member may ask a short supplementary.


ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS IN ALASKA
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do have a short supplementary. I would like to know whether the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made representations to the Department of the Interior, when it was holding environmental hearings in February of this year, so as to protect the fish that are spawned in Canada and go through Alaskan waters?

May 18, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is aware of the efforts being made by the Department to defend the interests of our fishermen on the Pacific coast.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) on Thursday, May 17, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


POINT OF ORDER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will be very brief. I would like to refer to the motion which was presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) yesterday, which was moved by unanimous consent and, indeed, received the consent of the House. I acknowledge that there was unanimous consent and that the motion was in proper form; there is no difficulty in that respect. The advice I received from our representatives on the committee was that, in their wisdom, they decided that that would be the form in which the motion would be posed.
It was brought to my attention this morning that there is an unusual provision in this particular motion, and I would like to raise it with Your Honour. I think for a variety of reasons it compromises-and it could so compromise if it were a precedent-the activities of parliamentary committees. I refer Your Honour to the provision following paragraph 6 of the motion in which it states:
That the Committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff as may be deemed necessary and after approval by the Clerk of the House of Commons-
Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge that is a novel proposition in terms of the method in which committees are able to have expert or technical assistance provided for the committees. I suggest, Your Honour, that this provision places the Clerk of the House of Commons-a distinguished and eminent person indeed-in a rather invidious position in that the Clerk may be faced with the prospect of having to overrule the recommendations of the committees.
The reason I raise the point at this time is that, having had a chance to consider this matter, I would hope that this would not be considered as a precedent in the future. As well, 1 would hope that we would give some thought with respect to placing officers of the House of Commons in a position whereby they
may indeed be placed in the unfortunate situation of having to approve or disapprove the recommendations of a House of Commons committee. Committees should have a free and unfettered ability to carry on their affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: If other Members are not prepared to respond, the Chair would like to make a few brief observations.
First, the Chair has noted the Clause and is giving careful consideration to the implications of it. The Chair may want to make a statement. However, it appears to the Chair that since the Clerk is under the direction of the Speaker of the House, this might be an instrument by which some over-all consistency in terms of rates of remuneration and scales by which people would be engaged by committees will be obtained, and some uniformity of practice in committees which might be in the interests of the House if it were introduced achieved. Certainly it is not the intention of the Chair, through the Clerk, to act in a dictatorial or difficult fashion, but it appears on first reflection that there might be some benefit to all Hon. Members of the House if some reasonable consistency of rates of remuneration and scales for people engaged for committee work might be considered. However, this is merely an observation at this point. The Chair may have more to say later.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition forwarded to me by the Peace Petition Caravan Campaign with 41 signatures on it. Among other things, it asks that the Parliament of Canada act to refuse the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada and to reject research, production, testing and transport of any nuclear weapons and delivery systems or components in Canada. They ask that Canada be declared a nuclear weapons free zone in accord with similar initiatives by other nations, and become actively involved in working for multilateral de-escalation of the arms race. They further ask that wasteful spending on the arms race be diverted to fund human needs so as to ensure prosperity through peace. Finally, they ask that the above-stated objectives be subject to ratification through a free vote in the Parliament of Canada.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 265 petitioners from Manitoba, primarily from Dauphin. I would also like to note that there are signatures from Ste. Rose du Lac, Roblin, Sifton and Ashville. They now exercise their right to present a grievance and humbly sheweth that since abortion
May 18, 1984

claims the lives of over 60,000 unborn babies annually in this country and living aborted babies have become a useful by-product for commercial use and medical experimentation, and because the undersigned believe that the unborn is truly a human being, they therefore ask the Government to pass legislation to recognize unborn babies, as well as the living survivors of abortion, to be truly living persons having the same rights as all citizens. In duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Dave Nickerson: for leave to introduce Bill C-241, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the objective of this Bill is to remove the inadvertency in the current legislation which disallows the leasing of Crown lands in the Yukon and Northwest Territories by Members of Parliament and Senators.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 152, 721, 785 and 786.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	What are the names of the members of the Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railways who reside in or represent Nova Scotia?
2.	In the past five years, were (a) solicitors or lawyers from Halifax, Covert retained to represent or to provide legal services to CNR and, if so, what were their names?
3.	(a) Was Mr. J.W.E. Mingo, Q.C., retained to represent or to provide legal services to CNR in the past five years (b) is Mr. Mingo a member of the Board
Order Paper Questions
of Directors of the (i) Port of Halifax Authority and, if so, who appointed him to that office (ii) CNR subsidiary or affiliate Halterm Limited and, if so, who nominated or recommended him for the appointment (c) is Mr. Mingo a solicitor for Halterm Limited and, if not, does the law firm of Stewart, MacKeen and Covert act as solicitors for Halterm Limited?
4.	Does the Government consider that membership in the Port of Halifax Authority, together with a directorship of Halterm Limited, plus a solicitor-client relationship with CNR or its subsidiaries or affiliate companies either directly or through a law firm might result in the holder of those offices, as a solicitor, receiving inside and confidential information which could result in a conflict of interest?
5.	Was Mr. Mingo the recipient of confidential and inside information about the Port of Halifax Authority, CNR or its subsidiaries and affiliates and Halterm Limited and their relationship with Dart Container Lines and does the government consider this is a conflict of interest with his duties as Chairman of the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Commission?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways, the Canada Ports Corporation and Transport Canada advise as follows:
1.	Professor John Sears is a director of CN and resides in Nova Scotia.
2.	(a) Yes. The firms of Cox, Downie; and Mclnnes, Cooper & Robertson, (b) No.
3.	(a) No. (b) (i) Yes. The Minister of Transport, (ii) Mr. J.W.E. Mingo, Q.C., is a director of Halterm Limited, a company of which CN is a minority shareholder; however, he was not nominated by or on behalf of CN. (c) Since CN is a minority shareholder only, this question should more properly be addressed to Halterm Limited.
4.	The Government does not consider that the posts held by Mr. Mingo place him in a conflict of interest position.
5.	Canadian National, its subsidiaries and affiliates and the Canada Ports Corporation did not provide Mr. Mingo with confidential and inside information about their own affairs. It would be improper for CN, as a minority shareholder, to reply on behalf of Halterm Limited. See also answer to 4.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: With reference to the answer to question No. 48, since February 2, 1984 was any decision made concerning the location to which the administrative offices of the Department of Agriculture, which are currently located in Saskatoon (that is the Prairie Regional Headquarters of the Research Branch, the Finance Directorate of the Finance and Administrative Branch, the Administration Directorate and Personnel) will be moved in Regina, Saskatchewan and, if so, will all or some of those offices be located in (a) Woodbine Place (b) the Derrick Building and, if so, what tendering procedure was followed in the selection of the building or buildings?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: No decision has been made concerning the location of Agriculture Canada administrative offices in Regina, Saskatchewan.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1. Is there an Industrial and Regional Development Policy Board and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or

May 18, 1984
Order Paper Questions
expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2. During the fiscal year 1982-83, did the Board meet and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: As of April 4, 1984, the reply for the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion is as follows:
1.	Yes, as publicly announced on January 5, 1984.
(a)	The Board will make recommendations to the Government regarding industrial policy objectives and priorities; improvements in the design and implementation of regional policies and programs; improvements in the coherence of regional, industrial and trade policies; and implications of the Government's other economic policies and priorities for regional industrial development. In addition, the Board will advise on the priorities for allocation of the department's resources and the department's agenda for policy research.
(b)	As announced on January 5, 1984, Mrs. Shirley Carr, Executive Vice-President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Labour Congress, and Mr. Paul Martin, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the CSL Group Inc. will be co-chairing the Board. The appointment of all Board Members and their terms of appointments have not as yet been finalized.
(c)	Board Members would receive no remuneration but will be compensated for travel expenses.
(d)	Nil.
2.	No. However, it is suggested that a meeting could be held every two months.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there an Advisory Committee on Canada's System of National Accounts and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	During the fiscal year 1982-83, did the Committee meet and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?


Mr. Paul-Andre Masse (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Statistics Canada reports:
1. (a) Terms of Reference. Yes, there is an Advisory Committee on Canada's System of National Accounts. Its terms of reference are to advise and consult Statistics Canada on the concepts, methods, standards and results of the system.
(b) (i) and (ii) Committee Members. The members have been selected for their expertise and not as representatives of particular communities or interest groups. Current membership is as follows:
Chairperson: Dr. Ian Stewart, Senior Advisor in the Ministry of State for Economic and Regional Development will serve as Chairman for an initial three-year term. Dr. Stewart has extensive experience in federal government economic portfolios and was previously a deputy minister in the Departments of Finance and Energy, Mines and Resources.
Members:
Dr. Simon Goldberg, Former Director of the United Nations Statistical Office.
Fred Gorbet, Assistant Deputy Minister in the Department of Finance.
Professor Richard Lipsey, Queen's University.
Professor David McQueen, Glendon College in Toronto.
Professor Marcel Dagenais, University of Montreal.
William White, Chief of the Research Department of the Bank of Canada.
John Grant, Director and Chief Economist in the firm of Wood Gundy.
(iii) Each member has been asked to serve a three-year term.
(c)	Those members not employed by the Government of Canada will receive a $500 honorarium per year. The travel expenses of each member are paid by Statistics Canada in accordance with Treasury Board regulations. Two of the members who are distinguished consultants and do not currently earn a salary from an institution will require some additional reimbursement via contracts which are being negotiated. The members have received nothing to date.
(d)	No other direct funding is provided; however, certain secretariat costs, such as office supplies, stationery, et cetera, are covered by Statistics Canada.
2. As the Committee was formed on March 29, 1984 there was no activity for the fiscal year 1982-83. The Committee will meet twice a year.


John Leslie Evans: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 18, 1984



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre De Bané: that Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is to increase the penalties in cases of violations of the Coastal Fisheries Protections Act. At the moment the penalties are very low, particularly for foreign vessels. This amendment is a non-contentious one and would give some incentive to the fleets, particularly the foreign fleets which have fishing allocations in our waters, to abide by the regulations of the Department.
I would even say that the regulations in the Bill as it now stands are stiffer, more so for Canadians than for foreigners. It is a very short Bill to amend the scale of penalties in order to encourage compliance with the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has, of course, explained that Bill C-4, a Bill to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, is a very simple Bill in substance in that it merely increases the penalties now provided for under the Act. However, the Minister must realize that the introduction of a Bill on coastal fisheries raises the whole question of the management of the coastal fisheries, not only in terms of the control of fish stocks and fishing, but in relation to the protection of that fish stock, both from foreign fishing fleets and from those who would fish in our coastal waters without proper licensing and permission.
I would like to review the situation in a more general way because it is of grave importance to the fishing community in the Maritime Provinces, particularly in the Province of Nova Scotia. I might say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that the fisheries critic for the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), is unavoidably absent from the House today. Had he been here, I am sure he would have had some cogent remarks to make, not only with respect to the specific provisions of Bill C-4 but generally with respect to the problems which have occurred in the coastal fishery. It is with his great interest over a long period of time in the Atlantic fisheries in mind that I rise as a Member of Parliament from Nova Scotia to record some of our concerns with respect to the Atlantic fisheries.
Let me deal first, Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-4 itself in the context of the Act which it amends. As we have indicated, we have no great objections to the Bill, and we recognize and realize that it will pass and be of some benefit in protecting the Atlantic fishery. However, we should not divorce this amendment from the whole context of the legislation which is involved. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I would raise for consideration-not so much with respect to this particular Bill
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act but other legislation brought before the House-the whole problem of subordinate legislation. The Bill raises penalties from a level of $25,000, which is the current level, to $100,000 and in the case of some other of the offences which may be committed under the Act or the regulations, from $5,000 to $25,000. That is, the new minimum penalty will be $25,000.
One of my points, Mr. Speaker, is that the Bill provides for an offence under the regulations and a fine by way of penalty for such an offence. Those of us who are interested in legislative and regulatory reform have taken the position that all serious provisions, particularly penal provisions, should appear in the statute itself, that is, the Act passed by Parliament.
Subordinate legislation may be essential in some situations, but it is very difficult to face penalties which relate to provisions made in subordinate legislation, that is, legislation which is not brought before the Parliament of Canada but simply passed by the Privy Council which, of course, is the Cabinet. That is what Bill C-4 does, Mr. Speaker, among other things. It provides for an offence against the regulations.
In that context, it is important to look at the provision of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act which provides for the making of regulations. Section 4 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act allows the Governor in Council to make regulations authorizing the issuance of licences and permits to foreign fishing vessels. It provides for regulations which relate to suspension and cancellation of those licences and permits, and it allows for authority to be given to enforce the provisions of the Act and for keeping goods and other equipment seized under the Act.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what we are providing for here is that a person may be brought before the courts in Canada charged with an offence against a regulation and fined as much as $25,000. That offence is created by the Cabinet, by the Privy Council, and it never appears before Parliament. That kind of legislative provision may be justifiable in this situation, but it is not one which a person interested in the reform of the legislative process would condone.
However, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with a Bill, the paramount purpose of which is to protect a public resource, the Canadian coastal fishery. The persons who would take advantage of and attack that resource are, for the most part, non-Canadians. So I suppose it makes very little sense for me to stand here and defend the civil rights of non-Canadians who might be robbing a Canadian public resource, and I do not want to do that. However, I do want to point out that this is not the kind of legislation which is regarded by proper standards as good legislation.
Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, it is in the public interest to increase the penalties for offences related to the protection of the coastal fishery. We have had a recent example in the Province of New Brunswick where fishermen from the State of Maine, who apparently make a habit of fishing in Canadian coastal waters without permission, find that the value of the fish they catch during those invasions of Canadian waters is

May 18, 1984
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
much greater than any fine which could be imposed against them. It is a situation where crime does pay. A fisherman, particularly one from an area near Canadian coastal waters like the State of Maine, can simply fish illegally in Canadian waters, sell the catch and, if apprehended, pay the fine out of the proceeds. To the extent this amendment corrects that situation it is most certainly desirable.
Of course, I hasten to point out that the fines here are maximum fines. That is to say, the court has the discretion to determine the amount of the fine and in the exercise of that discretion it may impose a much lower fine. That point should probably have a little more consideration by this House; that is, whether there should be minimum fines imposed under the Act. As it stands now, while the fine which can be imposed for fishing illegally in Canadian waters can reach $ 100,000, there is nothing to prevent a court of law from imposing a fine of $500 or $1,000. If the fisherman has caught a ton of halibut, he would not have any trouble paying a fine like that, to say the least.
Once again, as in all legislative matters, you have to create a balance of what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, bearing in mind that we want to have good relations with other nations. I am not in a position to make a judgment as to whether this particular amendment concerning the maximum amount of a fine, bearing in mind it does not provide for a minimum, is the best solution. I can only say, as we must say with other legislation at times, let us pass it and see whether it resolves the problem. If it does not, then it may be necessary to seek other solutions. The invasion of Canadian coastal waters by foreign fishermen is a real problem and has been for a long time. If we serve notice to those who invade Canadian waters to fish that there are serious penalties, then that will be an effective deterrent and will stop the problem.
I would like to make a few remarks of a general nature with respect to the coastal fishery, bearing in mind that we have no quarrel with the Bill itself. There have been a fairly substantial number of cases arise under this Act. Over a period of three years, as I understand it, there has been something in the area of $250,000 in fines imposed and almost the same amount in forfeitures under the provisions of the Act. While it is not an immense item, it is certainly substantial. As a matter of interest, many of these cases have occurred on both coasts involving fishing off Newfoundland and Nova Scotia as well as off British Columbia.
With respect to the general problem of management and control of the Atlantic fishery, it might be worth while to review very briefly the developments which have occurred. Foreign fishing off the East Coast of Canada presented no real problem in the mid-1950s. At that time only Canadians, residents of the United States and a few western European countries utilized the Atlantic fish stock. However, there was a literal invasion on both coasts of foreign fishermen, particularly the Japanese and Russians, subsequent to this point. With their modern fishing equipment and processing facilities, they utilized an immense amount of the fish stock on both coasts. It almost destroyed the Atlantic fishery. I am led to believe it
was very difficult for the Pacific coast fishery as well. That led to pressure which resulted in the imposition of the 200-mile commercial zone which then marked a new era for the Canadian fishery because that gave very substantial protection to the Canadian fish stock on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. It gave us the ability to create a proper system for management of that stock. However, Mr. Speaker, in the years that have gone by since the establishment of the 200-mile limit in the late 1970s, we continue to have grave difficulties in the Atlantic fishery.
According to statistics I have, the Atlantic fishery accounts for 14 per cent of the labour force in Newfoundland and a little over 7 per cent in Nova Scotia. It is a very substantial industry which none of the Maritime Provinces, particularly Nova Scotia, can afford to lose. Therefore, when we talk about fisheries protection on the Atlantic coast, we should have the same concerns as we do when we talk about protection of our central Canadian manufacturing industries. They are well protected by tariff and trade barriers and are allowed to be economically successful in Canada because of that protection. We do not have that kind of protection in the fishing industry so we really have to have this physical protection; that is to say, we have to be assured that there will be no unauthorized fishing in our coastal waters.
Let me review very briefly, Mr. Speaker, some of the problems which exist with respect to the management and utilization of the Atlantic fishery. Of course, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) knows very well that we have in the last year witnessed an attempt to restructure the Atlantic fishery and all the problems that went with that. There are two main problems in the Atlantic fishery: the determination and management of the fish stock; and the capacity we have to catch the fish at the appropriate time and process them.
One of the great difficulties I have, as do many, many people in Nova Scotia, some of whom are experts in the matter, is that there just does not seem to be enough valid information with respect to the kind and quality of the fish stock. This leads to great quarrelling. The Minister and his Department will impose restrictions upon fishermen with respect to the areas in which they can fish and the amount of fish they can catch. This is presumably in order to protect the stock, but it leaves those fishermen in a situation in which they cannot succeed economically. That is to say, they cannot catch enough fish at the right time of the year to get the benefit of a quick sale in the market. At the same time, the fishermen will tell you that there are abundant stocks and there is no need to restrict the areas in which they can fish or the species or quantities that they can catch. This bothers me, Mr. Speaker, because a non-expert is certainly in no position to make a judgment.
After the almost 10 years during which we have had the control and management of the 200-mile coastal zone, we still do not really know whether there is a sufficient supply of fish
May 18, 1984

to support larger quotas, or any of those facts. The Minister and his predecessors have said many times that there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish. Many people in the fishing industry quarrel with that. They are out on the sea hauling in their nets full of fish. They reach the quota which they are allowed for that vessel for a certain period of time and they cannot fish any more. The fish are there but they cannot catch them.
As fishermen will tell you, the fish do not wait around. They are not like western cattle; they do not stay in the pen until you come out next week to catch them. They go swimming off to other places, hide behind rocks, and that sort of thing. The fish which you may have caught this week when you had filled your quota may not be there next week when you go out and start on a new quota.
There is a lot of silliness in the fishing industry. Hon. Members from Ottawa may laugh, but fishermen have had to forgo taking in a net full of fish because they had filled their quota. They let those fish go and the fish swim off, or, more likely, die in the water because of the oxidization or whatever it is that takes place when they come up from the depths.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It sounds fishy to me.


Howard Edward Crosby: I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister of Fisheries to take the steps which are necessary to review once again what the Department is doing with respect to the biological aspect of the operation in determining what the quantity and quality of the fish stocks are in the Atlantic fishery. I would like him to provide information in a readable form so that fishermen can have access to this information and decide whether the information on which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is basing its judgment is reliable and accords with their own experience.
Fishermen have told me that they could not get a permit to fish in a particular zone because there were not sufficient fish there to support the permits which had already been issued. They have told me that they passed through those zones many times and the fish were there in abundance. The fishermen who had permits to fish in those zones took their catches, returned to port, and the fish were still there. That is what I mean. They are not going to stay there waiting to be caught by Canadian fishermen who have permits issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They do not know anything about the permits. That can be a lost resource. I think a lot more can be done in that area, Mr. Speaker.
With regard to protection of the coastal fishery, we see some ridiculous situations. I keep looking at my colleague from Red Deer in the Province of Alberta. If they ever managed the red meat industry in Canada the way the fisheries industry is managed by the federal Government, the whole industry would be down the drain. Everything would be put into a hamburger machine. You would not get top quality steak. There would be no such thing as sirloin. They would take all the cattle and turn them into McDonald's hamburgers. That is really what they are doing in the fishing industry today. There is talk of quality but there is nothing done. The fish are out there. They
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
are caught today. They are let go. No one knows what is going on.
When our colleague in the other place, Mr. Kirby, was just a lowly citizen like the rest of us, he restructured the Atlantic fishery. However, paper will not restructure the Atlantic fishery. You cannot just write tomes of material; you must deal directly with the people involved, and those are the fishermen, the inshore fishermen and the independent fishermen as well as the large companies. You just cannot go to the large companies and say that the Government and the large fishing companies will take over the Atlantic fishery. That is not going to work; you must manage the industry in its totality. You must do it with a great deal of knowledge, common sense and judgment. You cannot just mash it all together and turn the fish into fishsticks for McDonald's. It is not that kind of industry.
There is quality in fish just as there is quality in western beef. No one knows better how to distinguish the qualities in the red meat industry than the western Canadian farmers. That is one of the problems. If the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would give the fishermen the facts, equipment and facilities to educate them in the way the western farmers and the cattle producers have educated themselves in their industry, the problem would be resolved. In the Atlantic fishery we want useful bureaucratic assistance. We want information, direct aid, equipment and facilities.
I could give you 100 examples, Mr. Speaker, of how the Department of Fisheries operates, but I will just give you two. As I say, western cattlemen would not put up with this kind of nonsense. The Department builds wharves in small craft harbours to accommodate local fishermen. They do not build these with a couple of carpenters and a few pieces of timber. You cannot build a wharf on the Atlantic coast in half a day. With the force of tides and so on, any wharf must be a very substantial structure. A new wharf for Indian Harbour or Peggy's Cove involves a $.5 million expenditure or even more. The small craft harbours branch of the Department of Fisheries builds these wharves. We call the Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) the queen of small craft harbours. There is more money spent on small craft harbours in the federal constituency of South West Nova than there has been on fences for beef cattle in western Canada. A good wharf in a harbour means everything to a fishing community. Those wharves are expensive. The Department of Fisheries builds a $1 million wharf, but does not put a light on it. Someone else must put the light on it. Some fishermen must make a deal with the Nova Scotia Power Corporation to put a light on that wharf and pay the monthly charge in order for that wharf to be used during dark hours. Anyone who lives in Nova Scotia will tell you that from about October to early May there are a lot of dark hours. I do not want to give anything away that would adversely affect the tourist industry, but there is not all that much daylight. If there is a $1 million wharf with no light on it, one cannot make very good use of that investment. However, that is our Department of Fisheries and Oceans; it is what you call pennywise and pound foolish. For the sake of

May 18, 1984
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act $10 a month it makes a $1 million facility unusable for about 18 hours a day.
I can give another example of the nonsense in the fishing industry.


John Leslie Evans: Please do not.


Howard Edward Crosby: The Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) is enjoying this. He will not believe this but he has to lay the blame with his Government. Let me tell him about the swordfishing industry.


John Leslie Evans: I am just wondering what it has to do with the Bill.


Howard Edward Crosby: Sambro in the federal constituency of Halifax West is a beautiful place. People think of Peggy's Cove, but there are many coves and inlets on the coast of St. Margaret's Bay that may not be the equal of Peggy's Cove, but are very close to it. I am talking about places like Herring Cove and Sambro. They are beautiful. You can take wonderful pictures and show them to your friends. However, that is the tourist industry. I am talking about the fishing industry.
Sambro is a fishing community right on the Atlantic Ocean near the great Port of Halifax. Most of the fishermen were swordfishermen who had approximately 90 per cent of this one-time multimillion dollar swordfishing industry right in the village of Sambro. However, what happened was that someone, probably from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, obtained a piece of swordfish and decided there was mercury in swordfish. People asked what mercury was and did not know whether the fish was supposed to contain mercury.
To make a long story short, swordfishing was banned. The Government said that swordfish would not be allowed to be consumed in Canada. That was the end of the business for the swordfishermen. However, they hung in there because it was possible to sell the same swordfish that was not allowed into Canada to the United States. We all know that Americans are different and can eat a lot of mercury without getting sick while Canadians are weak and have to be careful!
Residents of the United States continued to utilize the swordfish. Although Canadians were the ones with the ability to catch the swordfish, the Americans wanted to buy the fish only from American fishermen. They would not buy Canadian fish when Canadians would not eat it, they would catch their own fish. Consequently Canadian fishermen caught the fish, sold it to the Americans who then brought it into the United States. The Government did not want that to happen so it passed a law saying that American fishermen had to catch the swordfish and could not bring the fish into Canada if they went to a Canadian port. This is what the Americans were doing. They simply sailed their boats to the Canadian ports to buy the swordfish and brought it back to the United States. In effect, they were running a transportation business instead of a fishing business. The Government stopped that procedure.
This problem has been solved and we can now catch and consume swordfish. However, the market has been destroyed in the meantime and people have forgotten about eating swordfish. Furthermore, they have the belief that something is wrong with swordfish. The industry is not flourishing as it once did. One only has to look at the swordfishing industry if one does not believe there is a connection between what happens on the coast in terms of the fishing industry and marketing of fish products and government policy that is administered by government officials.
Let me just add one sour note to that discussion. Some Nova Scotia fishermen who continued to try and survive in the swordfishing industry after being confronted with these regulations were in the position of violating American regulations that were similar to our Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. They were ultimately fined thousands of dollars and threatened with jail terms in the United States. That is the kind of crime we are talking about in this area. It was a crime to sell swordfish to another person. Who would have thought that people would go to jail in a western democracy for selling swordfish to another person by simply putting it on the market for consumption quite legally? That is an example of the sort of difficulties we experience in the fishing industry.
If there is any doubt that this legislation has a very practical application, members need only recall the tuna war on the West Coast. The argument concerned the pursuit of tuna. Tuna migrate from Japan right across the Pacific Rim. At some point Canadians had the idea that the fish that swam by was theirs and did not belong to the person who had chased it for 2,000 miles. This ultimately led to a fish war and to a downturn in the tuna industry.
St. Margaret's Bay in the federal constituency of Halifax West, which I am proud to represent in the Parliament of Canada, has something that westerners would not believe. There is a corral in the middle of that Bay in which there are tuna. Tuna are caught and put into that submarine corral as babies. When they are mature and healthy they are taken to the Halifax International Airport, loaded on a plane and shipped to Tokyo within 48 hours, where that tuna fish sell for $10 or $121 or more an ounce. That is an aspect of the fishing industry that people do not even realize. Those who think that the Atlantic fishery merely consists of people who jump into boats, throw out a net and return to port just do not understand the industry.
The future of the Atlantic fishery lies in quality production and international marketing. When it is possible to get up to $20 an ounce in Tokyo for a fish that was raised in St. Margaret's Bay, Nova Scotia, it makes for a rather interesting industry. In light of that, one might ask why not raise 2,000 tuna fish rather than 200? The answer is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will not permit it. The tuna may swim by but they cannot be taken.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They want some for next year.


Howard Edward Crosby: That is a reasonable point. They want some to swim by next year. However, the fishermen are saying that
May 18, 1984

they may or may not swim by next year. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not know the answer to that question and that is what annoys those fishermen. The Department tells the fishermen that they cannot catch any more than the allowable limit for this year in the interest of conservation and of ensuring that there will be some fish in the following year. The fishermen do not see tuna for another ten years, at which time they come back in abundance.
My point is that we need more information about these matters. The Department should not limit the tuna catch if it does not know what the results of that limitation will be, particularly if it means that that resource will be lost to the industry.
There are other problems affecting the coastal fishery. I have already spoken in Parliament about the Georges Bank problem. What will happen if the Government loses the Georges Bank case? It will not talk about it because it believes that it will not lose the case. I say again that the federal Government is gambling with Nova Scotia's chips in the International Court at The Hague. If it does not win that case it better have an alternative plan because there will be a problem when Government Members meet those fishermen on the south shore of Nova Scotia who are deprived of their ability to fish off Georges Bank.
Let me conclude my remarks about this area on a positive note. I know that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), agrees with me that our economic hope for the future lies in international trade. It is said that a $1 billion increase in international trade creates 17,000 jobs in Canada. If we could return to the share of international trade that we had in the mid-1970s, we could eliminate unemployment in Canada. The fishery is very much a part of this international trade because it is an exported product in its finished state.
I want to make one suggestion about this to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I suggest that free trade zones would be one method to provide greater access to international trade for the fishery. That is to say, areas where fishermen from all nations could come and process fish, which would really become a Canadian product with Canadian labour being utilized and then exported. This is a real possibility.
The Minister must know that the future of the fishing industry, the Atlantic fishery in particular, is dependent on the development of international markets and that development is dependent upon co-operation with foreign nations that are interested in the fishing industry. It will not be helped by taking foreigners off their boats and fining them in Canadian courts. That may be necessary to protect the industry and the fish stock, but co-operation is also required.
In conclusion, my advice to the Minister is to meet with officials of other nations that are interested in the fishery and ensure that we participate to a greater extent in international trade with respect to fish products. In that way we will not only benefit from the restructuring of the Atlantic fishery, but we will remove what must be the worst social problem this nation has faced in its history. I am speaking of the unemploy-
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act ment problem we face today, the 1.5 million Canadians who are officially unemployed along with the many more who have stopped looking for work, those who are employed part-time and those who have jobs below their qualifications.
We are not trying to save the fish, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to help Canadians. We will only do that if we use the fish stock to create a better economic condition for Canadians. Specifically that means employment for Canadians. The fishing resource can do that. All the industry needs is proper help, direction and assistance from the Government of Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I do not purport to be an expert on fish. Some people might say I am the exact opposite. However, I would point out that my riding is one of the few landlocked ridings in the lower mainland of British Columbia, the only one that does not face on the ocean. We do have a lake, Trout Lake. You can sort of throw a stone across it and I hope this weekend to do some fishing there. However, I do have many fishermen in my riding, including the President of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, Mr. Jack Nichol, who is a strong advocate for the fishermen's cause, and Bill Jarvie, a fisherman in my riding who comes to Ottawa many times.
The Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) who just spoke used the old slogan about too many fishermen chasing too few fish. It is a bit of a cliche. It comes out of the West Coast Pearse Commission. A lot of fishermen on the West Coast would dispute that. I do not think the Hon. Member adopted it. If you look at that expression of too many fishermen chasing too few fish, you could apply some of the Prime Minister's Jesuit logic and say what you have to do is either one of two things. One is to decrease the number of fishermen which, of course, is what the Government would propose to do; or you could increase the number of fish.
That is why we support this Bill. It has one element, only a small element, to help increase the number of fish. The Bill, as I understand it, proposes to revise the penalties for the violation of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. It will make it an offence to violate the regulations made under the Act and it will increase the penalties. This really applies to foreign countries that fish in our waters. I believe there are 15 of them which have fishing treaties with Canada. I understand that when foreign fishing fleets did violate the Act, the fines were too small to make much of a dent in their fishing practices. Perhaps boats could be seized in addition to the levying of fines. Perhaps there is an element of international law and particular difficulties of which I am not aware that would preclude doing that, or there may be other statutes that would allow it.
I shall speak only briefly on the Bill because I think the Bill should go through today. The Bill does increase the fines, and that is good. But perhaps the Department should also look at increasing enforcement. I used to be a Crown attorney. I know you can increase fines. Fines are some element of a deterrent but you have to catch the violators before you can fine them. It

May 18, 1984
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act seems to me there has to be some particular enforcement provision.
I found a problem in the Minister's Vancouver office. People have visited me in my Vancouver office and told me there is a problem with staffing. The problem revolves around the large amount of contracting out which is done for some reason or another, and that disturbs some of the employees. It is more expensive in the long run to contract out. You can end up using personnel agencies and you have to pay them 20 per cent of the fee. Perhaps the Minister could take a look at that. Maybe he could save some money and have the staff feeling better if they were employed on permanent contracts rather than on the basis of contracting out. I am not familiar with all the internal workings of his Department; he is probably much more familiar with that than I am, but I wanted to tell the Minister, who is here in the House, that that matter came to my attention.
With respect to increasing the number of fish, we have to do more in that area. We have to talk about enhancement, in particular salmon enhancement on the West Coast. We have to talk about protecting the environment from competing uses. We have to talk about enforcing our fishing treaties and so on. This Bill deals with that matter.
I want to point out to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) and to the House that the environment critic for the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), has raised with the Minister the launching of an inquiry into the dumping of tailings into a northern British Columbia fjord by Amax of Canada Ltd. That is a measure which could be looked at to protect the environment.
I also draw to the Minister's attention the Kemano II project which Alcan proposes in British Columbia, the problem that will raise concerning the threat to salmon and the threat of diverting rivers in British Columbia.
There is another matter I draw to the Minister's attention which has been raised in this House a number of times by the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller), our fisheries critic. On February 3, 1984, he raised various matters with the Minister, including funding for habitat protection, increasing enforcement and for salmonid enhancement. He asked the Minister to make a real commitment to this renewable resource which can provide jobs forever and ever if looked after properly. Those were the words of our fishery critic.
In British Columbia we always face the problem of competing uses-forestry affecting the fish, oil and gas affecting the fish, and so on. This is something with which we have to come to terms. I hope the Minister will be an advocate of the fishery against these alternate uses when they are in conflict.
I want to conclude by reading a telegram which I think sums things up very well. It was sent by a Mr. Erik Larsen, the Mayor of the beautiful coastal community of Ucluelet on the West Coast of British Columbia. This is what we in the NDP feel our fisheries policy should be. The telegram was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and reads:
I have today sent telegrams to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans requesting them to review present and proposed policies regarding the Fishing industry, with the industry and communities affected. Privatization of a resource, halting of the Salmonid Enhancement Program, mandatory instead of voluntary buy-back program, lack of control over depredation of the resource by other countries, and a proposed harvesting in terminal Fisheries only spell economic disaster to Ucluelet and many coastal communities dependent on the Fishing industry. Widespread unemployment and social upheaval will result. We urge you to take all steps possible to see that there is more consideration given these facts before new policies are allowed.
I close by saying the Minister should take that message to heart. This Bill is a beginning. We support it.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties. It has been agreed that after speakers from all three Parties we proceed to put the Bill into Committee of the Whole and then through third reading stage as well. Would it be possible at this time, Mr. Speaker, for you not to see the clock, to proceed to Committee of the Whole and finish the Bill before we break for the luncheon adjournment?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: This will require unanimous consent. The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) is rising on the same point of order?


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, that is quite acceptable to us if it is amendable to you. We would be prepared to give unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: First, we will require unanimous consent to amend the motion of the Minister that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and instead referred to the Committee of the Whole. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Second, we will require unanimous consent not to see the clock. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Mr. De Bane, seconded by Mr. Pepin, moved that Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, be now read a second time and, with unanimous consent, be referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and, by unanimous consent, considered in Committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
May 18, 1984
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It being 1:04 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1:04 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Jean-Luc Pepin: , for the Minister of Transport, that Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to read these notes on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and to be associated once again with the advancement of the interests of farmers in Western Canada.

The Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act was introduced in 1957 as a way to provide-


Mr. Mazankowski:: Under a Diefenbaker administration.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, under a Diefenbaker regime. I cannot do anything about dates.
The Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act was introduced in 1957 as a way to provide grain producers with much needed cash in the form of interest-free advances on Canadian Wheat Board initial payments when quota delivery opportunities are restricted and grain must be stored on the farm. During the first few months of each crop year, there is a large amount of grain ready for delivery to country elevators. Due to market conditions and particularly the need to ensure an orderly flow of grain throughout the year, the Wheat Board must restrict delivery opportunities at that time. Since cash requirements during harvesting are relatively high, producers have been provided by the advance payments program with a means of maintaining cash flow without having to resort to taking bank loans at commercial rates.
The program is very much a productive investment, as it gives producers confidence to continue production at satisfactory levels despite short-term negative markets and delivery considerations. This confidence, in turn, has positive implications for long-term export targets, price stability, the cost of other federal grain support programs, and for the prairie economy as a whole.
Advance Payments
The amount of the advance is calculated on the basis of per acre quota rates and per tonne payment rates. The rates are set by the Governor in Council at the beginning of each crop year. There is also a maximum limit for any advance, currently set at $15,000 for an individual; $30,000 for a multi-farmer unit-corporation, partnership or co-operative-involving two participants; and $45,000 for a multi-farmer unit involving three or more participants. This procedure ensures that the advance is of a size capable of being retired by the end of the crop year, through deductions from producer receipts at delivery. The word "advance" is made clear. But it is not supposed to be a long-term payment. It is a short-term payment because the recovery must be within the same year. Thus the objective of providing short-term cash requirements is met.
Why are we here today? We are here because we would like to make three amendments to the Act.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is a good reason.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is the obvious reason. If we were not to make changes, we would not be here. We would simply be implementing the law as it exists.
In order to be successful, programs such as this must evolve to meet the changing circumstances and the changing needs of those whom it serves. The proposed amendments would ensure the continued success of the advance payments program well into the future.
Since the last amendments to the maximum levels of advance payments in 1975-and that was due under a Liberal regime-there has been a clear trend to larger farm operations. I have three separate statistics to demonstrate that. One is the number of permit book holders. That number has dropped from 155,693 in 1975-76 to 143,588 in 1982-83. That is a decrease of 7.8 per cent.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What is your source?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not have a footnote, but I will find out.
The total acreage has risen from 108,043,460 acres in 1975-76 to 110,547,588 acres in 1982-83. That is an increase of 2.3 per cent. The average size of farms, in acres, has risen significantly. The average size in 1975-76 was 694 acres. The average size in 1982-83 was 770 acres. That represents an increase of 10.9 per cent. These are figures which my hon. friend from Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) will remember. They were mentioned, at least in conceptual form, in the debate on the western transportation system.
The average size of farm operations has increased and, therefore, larger producers are subject to correspondingly higher cash requirements and financial risk. If they have bigger operations, they obviously require more cash and their risk is higher. Therefore, the Government is proposing that the limits on payments be doubled to $30,000 for individual producers, from $15,000; to $60,000 for multi-farmer units with two participants; and to $90,000 for multi-farmer units with three or more participants. In addition, the maximum advance for drying damp or tough grain would be raised from

May 18, 1984
Advance Payments
$1,500 to $3,000, and the maximum advance for unthreshed grain would be raised from $7,500 to $15,000. That is in addition to the figures I have already indicated. That is the first change.
The second amendment is that since the Government recognizes that further adjustments to the maximum advance payment would be necessary from time to time-life being what it is-it is also proposing that future adjustments be made a part of an Appropriation Act of Parliament. In this way the Act would become more quickly responsive to the changing needs of producers, while at the same time Parliament would maintain control and scrutiny over adjustments. That is the second change.
The third change is that a further provision of Bill C-23 is the revocation of Subsection 7(3.2) of the Act, which excluded spouses from participation in the program. It was first introduced as a safeguard in the administration of the program. Considering the fact that more and more farm businesses are run these days by both husband and wife playing a direct and active role in the operations, the continued inclusion of this provision is frankly discriminatory. The Canadian Wheat Board no longer considers spousal participation an administrative difficulty.
Those are the three amendments that the Bill introduces. Virtually all major western grain producer organizations have urged such increases in the maximum limits on advance payments; therefore, they should be well received. Early passage of the Bill would permit the Wheat Board to implement the revised program on the specified effective date, which is August 1, the start of the new crop year.
Those are the three amendments. I am quite sure that my hon. friends on the other side of the House as well as Members on this side will be pleased with the amendments. If Hon. Members want to insist on passing the Bill through the three steps today, I think that would be welcomed by the rest of the population.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, first I must say that it is a pleasure to speak on behalf of our spokesman for the Canadian Wheat Board who is unavoidably out of Ottawa on this Friday. Had the Bill come into the House yesterday, he would have been here and he would have been prepared to take his responsibility seriously on this very important matter.
I do not intend to speak too long because I know my hon. colleague from Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) would like to speak on this Bill as he comes from a very large grain growing area in western Canada. Certainly he has had much to do with the well-being of the western grain producers, especially in relation to the so-called Crow debate.
I should tell the Hon. Minister of Transport-


Jean-Luc Pepin: 


Thomas Gordon Towers: -that he does have a lot of friends in western Canada. Pardon me, he is no longer the Minister of Transport; he is Acting Prime Minister today, filling in for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). However, if he had remained in that portfolio until the debate was completed, having finished as well as he started, we would have had a lot more happy farmers in western Canada than we have today. The farmers did not really realize exactly what the consequences would be of the Crow debate, and I would like to refer to some comments made by the agriculture critic of our Party.
The Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) said on May 3, 1984, and I quote:
Western grain producers will have to pay an extra $25 million in freight costs which should be borne by the federal government,. . . This amount represents the cost of shipping higher volumes of grain than forecast from August 1, 1983 to December 31, 1983. However, as the new Crow legislation did not come into effect Until January 1st, 1984, the shipper should only have to pay additional costs for grain shipped during the last seven months of the current crop year. Instead, producers are paying for the bigger-than-expected volumes shipped before the new rate took effect-costs which should be borne by the federal government.
The $25 million is part of the CTC calculation of the new rate for the upcoming 1984-1985 crop year, which includes the establishment of an interim adjustment based on the apportionment of costs between the producers and the federal government. For a year in which actual volume shipments exceed the forecast tonnage on which the rate calculation is based, the shippers pay less than they should. The CTC calculates the underpayment and adds it to the shippers' share for the next crop year.
For 1983-1984, tonnage shipped is estimated to be 34.55 million tonnes, considerably greater than forecast. As a result, the CTC has calculated the underpayment to be $60.1 million, and has added this amount to the producers' share in determining the rate for 1984-1985. The new rate means that producers will pay 33 per cent more to ship their grain in the next crop year (from $5.76 to $7.70/tonne), while railway investment is decreasing by 25 per cent.
The government should own up to its responsibility and not charge producers for additional costs incurred for the five months prior to the new rates coming into effect by ordering a $25 million reduction in the 1984-1985 freight rate to be paid by producers.
That statement is very relevant, Mr. Speaker, and consideration should be given to it by the Government. As I said, it would have been much better if the Acting Minister had retained his portfolio as Minister of Transport, had been able to initiate his former position on the Crown legislation, and if that $650 million which went into the railway's pocket had been put into the hands of the western producers, as was suggested by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. Unfortunately, that was not to be because we had to beef up the CPR so it would have room for the latest director to be appointed, who is now running for the leadership of the Liberal Party.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Who is that? What is his name?


Thomas Gordon Towers: I am asked who it is, and with your approval, Mr. Speaker, it is the Hon. John Turner who used to sit in this House of Commons.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: And he is on the board of directors of the CPR? That is shameful!


Thomas Gordon Towers: I would like to bring to the attention of the House that however graciously the Acting Prime Minister has presented this Bill today on behalf of the Minister of Trans-
May 18, 1984

port, all this Bill is doing is keeping up with the inflation factor from the year 1975, when, as he said, the Diefenbaker Government initiated this proposal. Of course, at that time you will remember, Sir, that grain stocks had built up somewhat and this was supposedly a quick cure for the situation which had developed at that time. However, we must realize that the present Bill just barely keeps up with inflation and does nothing for increased costs and the low selling price for grain. It certainly does nothing to lower the input costs, the cost factor which is associated with grain production. There is nothing whatsoever in this Bill for that. As the Minister said, it just puts short-term money into the hands of the producer. Everyone must understand that it is really not a gift to the producer at all. It is just a consequence of the build-up of grain so that there can be an orderly supply of grain for market for the 12-month period. It is certainly not a gift to the western producers at all.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), asked a question in the House on April 16, 1984. He requested the Government at that time to give consideration to making this an encompassing program which would cover the grain producers in Ontario and Quebec as well, and include corn and other grains which are grown for sale in Ontario and Quebec.
We intend to let this Bill pass today because we want its provisions in place by August 1. Grain prices went down considerably a year ago. Statistics Canada figures showed that a year ago number one wheat dropped about 12 cents a bushel, oats dropped about 23 cents a bushel and barley dropped about 39 cents a bushel. When you add to that loss, Mr. Speaker, the loss in the initial price which is going to be paid after August 1 of this year of another 7 per cent to 10 per cent, you can understand what is happening in the grain industry. You do not have to be a mathematician to figure that out. Grain prices are going down, yet costs are escalating.
We in our Party are of the opinion that there are many ways in which the Government could assist in the production of food. It is, after all, a vital industry. It makes such a tremendous contribution to our balance of payments, tradewise, on the world market. Perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had forgotten that fact when on December 13, 1968 he stated: "Why should I sell the Canadian farmers' wheat? You grew it; you sell it".


Jean-Luc Pepin: You have the Canadian Wheat Board to do it.


Thomas Gordon Towers: He apparently did not understand the benefit which accrued to our Canadian economy by the production and sale of western grain. It has to be within the $8 billion bracket, Mr. Speaker, and that is considerable.
In view of that thinking, the western grain producer and agriculture generally seems to have suffered a lot at the hands of this Government. Taxes placed on farm fuels have escalated costs tremendously. It has been estimated by different farm groups, such as the Palliser Grain Growers, that the tax on diesel fuel and gasoline alone represents about 30 per cent of the actual energy cost in the maintenance of a farm. It works out to about $1 an acre. The taxes consist of the federal sales
Advance Payments
tax of 2.9 cents a litre on gasoline and diesel fuel, .7 cents for the Canadian ownership tax, and the PGRT amounts to about 4.6 cents a litre. You can understand, Mr. Speaker, why there is a tremendous cost input in the production of food, which the Government could alleviate if it so desired. We think it would be desirable to cut that tax because the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is always complaining in the House of Commons that we have to be careful that we do not export some subsidized agricultural product.
Let me impress upon this House, Mr. Speaker, that just because the Government takes away an input cost, it cannot be construed as a subsidy. It has to have a top loading factor involved. That is where you get into trouble with subsidies for foreign markets. We hope that our side of the House will form the Government after the next election, and we will then be able to implement some of these proposals which we believe are absolutely of fundamental importance if the agricultural community in Canada is going to maintain any stability at all.
In the first three months of this year bankruptcies in the farm community were 42 per cent higher than they were in the first three months of 1983, a tremendous escalation. I know all Members of Parliament are getting calls of desperation from different individuals in the farming community who got caught in a bind. Unfortunately there are a lot of good young farmers in this situation.
Ever since possibly 1945 the economy of Canada has been gradually growing. As it did so, the only mistake anyone could make was to not buy something. Whatever you bought, you could always turn it over and make money on it over the next year or so. Some of our future farmers have been caught in this way, so unless something is done it is just going to create a desperate situation for a lot of those farmers.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will say that we are prepared to pass this Bill as quickly as possible, but my colleague from Vegreville wants to make some comments for the benefit of the Members opposite.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23 does a couple of fairly important things concerning cash advances on the Prairies. I will start by going over a little bit of history. One of the significant things about this Bill is that it, in the words of the Minister, eliminates discrimination against the farm spouse when it comes to giving a cash advance. I am very pleased to see that and I want to give credit to the person I think really deserves the credit, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo). This thing really started back about 1980-81 when a farmer in the Mackenzie riding and another farmer in the Prince Albert riding complained to his Member of Parliament, Stan Hovdebo.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: At that time he wrote a letter to the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Hon. Senator from Assiniboia. That was in January, 1982. He received a

May 18, 1984
Advance Payments
reply on March 10 saying that he thought the provision was worth reviewing again and he undertook to re-examine the regulations in this regard when the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act is next opened up for amendment. The good Senator started to take a look at it after the matter was raised by my friend from Prince Albert.
After that he raised the question in the House. He directed questions to the Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) who was then in charge of transportation. He shakes his head no. In any event, he raised the question in the House, saying that the Act as written discriminated against farm wives. At that time the cash advance was some $15,000. To explain to those people who might not know what a cash advance is, it means a farmer could get an advance on the grain stored in his bins. The maximum is $15,000. Under the old Act, which we are amending today, if there was a partnership that $15,000 could be doubled to $30,000. If there were three partners, it became $45,000. But that was not the case if your partner was your spouse. In 99 per cent of the cases the spouse, of course, is the wife because it is the man who is registered as the permit book holder. Despite the fact that the wife is a full-time farmer and equally responsible for the work on the farm, when she applied for a cash advance she was turned down. That was discimination against women, it was wrong, we all now think it was wrong, and it is just too bad we took so many years to correct it.
I wanted to give credit to the Hon. Member for Prince Albert for initiating this matter, for raising it in the House and writing to the Minister. He also went to the Human Rights Commission and launched a complaint in his campaign to make sure we had a change in the law. I have a report from Stan Hovdebo, MP for Prince Albert, dated February 1, 1981 concerning the fight against discrimination in this legislation. I also know from personal experience that he discussed this issue with the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. He talked about it with our local action committee in Saskatchewan. So it is a great pleasure for me to say a few words in testimony to the work that Hon. Member has done. Unfortunately he is not here today, he is back in his riding office in Prince Albert, but I had a chance to speak to him very briefly on that earlier this afternoon.
The other important point about the Bill before us today is the doubling of the cash advance from $15,000 to $30,000. Farmers have been calling for this, as we have on this side of the House, for several weeks. I am pleased it is in the Bill and it will be of some use to the prairie farmers.
I want to make the point that the solution to the problems being faced by ordinary farmers on the Prairies is not only advancing them more credit. We have to find a more lasting solution which will provide them with the means to stay on the farm and continue farming. I am very fearful that if we continue this kind of drift we will get larger and larger farms and eventually the day will come when we have just a few large corporate farms covering several townships of land. The small towns and communities will practically disappear and we will be like the State of Colorado which has very few farms, all
basically run by large corporations, and the farm workers are paid a minimum wage, not unionized and exploited right down the line. With this, of course, comes the destruction of the fabric of rural life which we have known in this country ever since it was opened up in western Canada back around the turn of the century and even before.
I would like to suggest at this time, Mr. Speaker, that we do something immediately to stimulate the farm economy. We need an immediate injection of cash into the hands of farmers.
I would like to suggest to the Minister and his officials that we should persuade the Cabinet to eliminate the federal gas tax on farm fuel. There are three or four different kinds of gas tax on farm fuel. There is the sales tax, the well-head charge, the Canadian ownership charge and so on. These taxes amount to around 30 cents for every gallon a farmer buys to plant his crops, cultivate his land and harvest the crops in the fall.
I believe we should be eliminating those federal fuel taxes. That would cost the federal treasury a couple of hundred million dollars. In effect, we would be giving the small and average farmer in the country an immediate stimulation of hundreds of dollars. In many cases it would be $1,000 or $2,000. This would go a long way toward keeping farmers on the land. Farmers are running a Canadian-owned business. This money would be kept right here at home. Farmers are great spenders. They will spend this money. They will buy more farm machinery which will help places like Brantford, Ontario. They will make more repairs and fix up their buildings. This will stimulate the economy right across the board. I cannot think of a better way of stimulating the economy and trying to make a dent in the unemployment rate in urban Canada than by stimulating the farm economy.
I come from Yorkton-Melville and if one eliminates the native population, according to the latest census data my riding has the lowest per capita income in Saskatchewan. Perhaps that is why the gas tax is more important to me than it is to most Members of the House. We have more small, marginal and average farmer than any other riding in Saskatchewan. In the Yorkton area there are still a lot of farmers on a half section, three-quarters or section of land who are having an extremely difficult time making ends meet. Many farmers are massively into debt and just cannot afford the high interest rates and high energy costs we are experiencing. A saving of an extra thousand dollars on farm fuel would help immensely to keep them on the land. I appeal to Members of the House not only to pass the legislation before us, but to do something substantial and significant for the ordinary farmers of the land.
Farm bankruptcies in my area have doubled in the last year or so. I believe the same is true in other areas as well. I do not know what is going to happen to some of those people. I have met with several farmers who have just lost their land or are in the process of losing their land. Some of these people are forty or fifty years old and have no other particular skill or trade that they can exercise. Some of them are younger, of course,
May 18, 1984

but they do not have any technical skill or university training. They go into cities and look for jobs. Some of them are unemployed and some are on welfare. It creates a tremendous personal hardship and a tremendous social problem for society as a whole.
We give hundreds of millions of dollars to the oil companies each year in this Parliament through PIP grants, write-offs and all kinds of grants to the friends of the Liberal Party. Instead of doing that, why do we not give some money to the ordinary citizen of the country? Why do we not start priming the pump at the bottom with the ordinary farmer who will spend that money? He will stay on the land, stimulate the economy and create more jobs in Toronto and the rest of the country. That is a very important thing which we can and must do immediately.
I think we should pass the amendment to the Western Grain Stabilization Act as quickly as possible so that payments can be made immediately to western farmers. That should have been done months ago. There is no excuse for that to be left until the fall. If that Act had been passed, a lot more farmers would be in better condition today than those in the constituency of Yorkton-Melville. Those are some of the immediate things we can do, Mr. Speaker.
One more thing we should be doing with regard to the survival of farmers is to give them more long-term security and guarantees about the prices they will receive for their commodities. The time has come in this country for parity pricing for farm products. I have a Private Member's Bill in the House which I would like to have passed as soon as possible. It would provide parity pricing for farm products. In other words, it would guarantee farmers a price for their livestock and grains. Other Canadians often have this type of thing. Members of Parliament have a guaranteed salary. Unionized workers sign contracts. Lawyers and doctors have very powerful associations which work for them. The business community has powerful associations and lobbyists. They have guaranteed prices for their products and work. I make an appeal to the House for parity pricing for farm products so that farmers will have guaranteed prices for the commodities that they produce. That would keep a lot more people on the farms and we would have healthier rural communities.
We certainly support Bill C-23 which is before the House today. I am particularly interested in the part which ends discrimination against farm wives. Mr. Speaker, this is not the only way in which farm wives are discriminated against. Farm wives have had to endure a lot of discriminatory practices in past years. Farm wives do not have pensions and many of the other benefits which urban wives sometimes take for granted. I hope this will be only a beginning toward equality between the sexes on the farm.
I recommend quick passage of this Bill, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to see the end to discrimination and I am pleased to see the amount of cash advance go up. However, after this Bill is passed, let us do something really meaningful to help the farmers stay on the land, such as ending federal gas taxes on farm fuels.
Advance Payments


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on the amendment to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. While I want to speak in absolute support of the Bill, it does afford one the opportunity to speak about the very serious problems which are affecting the agricultural sector, and particularly the grain sector, in western Canada.
At the outset I would like to say that it is a pleasure to see the former Minister of Transport in his place taking up the issues which affect the prairie grain industry and western Canadian farmers. I would like to echo the words of my colleague from Red Deer (Mr. Towers) who alluded to the fact that the former Minister of Transport did make a lot of friends in western Canada, not only in his former capacity as Minister of Trade and Commerce some years ago, but also throughout the course of his initiatives in grappling with the Western Grain Transportation Act. There is one thing that is almost universal as far as western farmers are concerned. That is that they always felt that they had the ear of the Minister and could trust him and that he was very frank and forthright, I think that is an excellent tribute to the Minister. We are very pleased that he is still involved, albeit sometimes on the periphery, but he is still here showing an active interest.
I would also like to acknowledge the fact which has been referred to earlier that this piece of legislation originated with a Conservative administration under the leadership of the former great Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker. It is an excellent piece of legislation which has served the test of time and has been upgraded and updated from time to time. That is essentially what we are doing here today.
It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that this vehicle, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, is generally used when there is trouble or the imminence of trouble in the prairie farm economy. Since the year 1957, when this Act was First implemented, there has been some $2.3 billion advanced to the prairie farmers. One could wonder what would have happened if that mechanism had not been available. In going through the statistics that have been provided in the last annual Canadian Wheat Board Report, it is interesting to note the years in which it was used very heavily, the years of difficulty. For example, in the crop year 1968-69, almost $152 million was advanced. In the year 1969-70, almost $273 million was advanced. There was then about a ten-year period when the advances were less than $100 million. In 1978 it went up again to $150 million. In the last two crop years, 1981-82 and 1982-83, advance payments were up approximately $334 million and $309 million respectively. One can almost look at that statistical data and identify the years of difficulty in the prairie grain economy.
I believe the only criticism we can make about this piece of legislation is the fact that it has taken so long to come forward. Our Party has been advocating amendments to this Bill for quite some time. As a matter of fact, on June 23, 1982 our

May 18, 1984
Advance Payments
spokesman for the Canadian Wheat Board wrote a letter to the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board in the other place, requesting that he give serious consideration to the kind of amendments that we have before us right now. It is interesting to note that he stated at that time, speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party, that we would support that kind of initiative and also grant speedy passage.
The Senator from the other place responded on July 5, 1982, and said:
I can affirm that I am in general agreement with suggestions that the ceiling on cash advances be increased, and that the matter is receiving active consideration.
Some active consideration! It is almost two years later and now the Bill is before the House. He went on to say:
You have presented sound arguments in support of such an adjustment and there are also other practical considerations that will be brought to bear in arriving at a decision on the matter.
It has taken too long. We have been continually raising this issue on the floor of the House of Commons. The Hon. Member from Drumheller has been pushing for this. It is the subject matter of a Private Member's Bill, Bill C-218. Literally every day when we talk about the plight of the agricultural industry, particularly the western agricultural industry, we have been raising this issue.
Our Party came out with a ten-point agricultural program a year ago. Among other things, we called for the doubling of the cash advances. We recognized the difficulties in the agricultural sector throughout Canada. Our first point was to advocate some interest rate relief for farmers who were caught in that period of high interest rates and were unable to bail themselves out or arrange their affairs in such a way as to take advantage of the reduction in interest rates. We were asking for at least $100 million to provide some relief and amelioration from the impact of high interest rates.
We called for the establishment of an agri-bond. We called for Farm Finance Review Boards. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is correct in pointing out that literally every day there are farmers going bankrupt. Every weekend when we go home, we are faced with the prospect of a visit from farmers who are caught in a bind. There was a postponement of any action by the banks but now they are moving in and the crunch is coming. It has been very difficult. In many respects they have no one to turn to, so we were suggesting the establishment of a Farm Finance Review Board which would act as a negotiator or referee to help them out of their difficulties.
We talked about the reduction of fuel taxes. Again, we see a clear example of the hypocrisy of the NDP who talk out of both sides of their mouth. They were the great supporters of the Liberal National Energy Program and of the pricing arrangements. They bought it hook, line and sinker. Now they are saying that it is not very good for farmers. We have always advocated the removal of at least the sales tax on farm fuels. We also said a year ago that the initial grain prices should remain the same. We said that the Western Grain Stabilization Act should be modified so that it could trigger an
immediate pay-out. At that time I believe there was between $750 million and $800 million available.
We called for a national income stabilization program for the red meat industry. We also asked for revisions to Section 31 of the Income Tax Act through which Revenue Canada again was taking advantage of its clout and intimidating acts to hurt those farmers who found that they had to gain employment outside of their farm operations in order to sustain their operations.
We also called for the dual labelling of farm chemicals and fertilizers because that is still a very sore point with the average farmer.
Our criticism is that the Government, as has been alluded to by both previous speakers, has not considered agriculture to be in the forefront as it deserves. While we talk about getting this country rolling again, we sometimes fail to take cognizance of an industry that is very important. Agriculture in Canada is a $19 billion annual megaproject. Statistics shows that approximately 55 per cent of that agricultural activity is generated in western Canada. In terms of exports, we export $10 billion worth of agricultural products. Since it is so dependent on exports, the agricultural industry is very vulnerable. It is very vulnerable to inside and outside forces. It must be competitive. Therefore, transportation breakdowns, markets, prices and quotas all have a major effect. There must be some provision to ensure that there is continual stability. That is the purpose of this Bill.
If we consider the agri-food industry in total, it accounts for approximately 18 per cent of the total labour force, albeit that maybe 4 per cent or 5 per cent represents actively engaged farmers. Furthermore, there are tremendous spin-offs. Again, the Member for Yorkton-Melville alluded to the fact that farmers spend approximately $2 billion a year on farm machinery and the purchase of parts. They spend about $1.3 billion on the purchase of energy and approximately $1.1 billion or $1.2 billion for fertilizer. These are big dollar items which cause tremendous reverberations throughout the economy.
It has been said that for every dollar generated in agriculture, another $4 is generated throughout the economy. This is a very important sector that is experiencing serious difficulty right now, notwithstanding the fact that it stood up very well during the recession. While the rest of the economy is recovering, agriculture is now feeling the full brunt. There was some postponement of debts and some debt consolidation, but the chickens are coming home to roost. Farmers need some consideration and help right now. That is why bankruptcies and other difficulties are occurring. I would say that there are at least two dozen farmers in my immediate area who are on the verge of going bankrupt. Not only young or inexperienced people are going bankrupt, it is occurring across the board. These people are caught in the squeeze of low commodity prices, high fuel prices, high fertilizer prices and high interest rates. It has been disastrous for them. Their net incomes have dropped by 30 per cent since 1978.
May 18, 1984

We know that with respect to grain it is necessary to be competitive in order to penetrate those markets. Our wheat prices today are at the level which was in place in 1973. The price of wheat has been reduced again this year. The initial price is $160 per tonne whereas it was $222 three years ago. The $160 per tonne translates to $4.35 per bushel.
It is suggested that the reduction in initial prices will result in some $250 million less in the western agricultural economy. As I said previously, the reality of the reduction in prices coupled with the huge input costs, such as interest, fertilizer and fuel, the price of which has doubled in four years, makes it so important for the Government to take cognizance of the fact that there should be some relief for the producers of food in this country. That is why we have advocated, at least as a minimum, the reduction of the 9 per cent sales tax on farm fuel. This would give farmers a little bit of hope and optimism. It would recognize that somebody is really considering their future and looking after their best interests. In The Financial Post for April 28, 1984, a headline reads, "The great farmland sell off underlines desperate plight of Western farmers". Even people in the financial community recognize the problem. Let me quote the following from the article which appeared in The Financial Post:
The classified pages of Canadian farm newspapers testify to a growing desperation in the Prairie countryside this spring.
Here is another example from this article:
After 25 years farming, Freeman finds himself sitting on a $400,000 mound of debt. Interest payments alone ate up 40 per cent of his $200,000 revenue last year, he says.
"If my creditors are willing to take write-offs of 50 cents on a dollar, then I can stay in business," says the 47 year old father of four. Otherwise he'll join the ranks of those forced from farming-a group agricultural officials say is no longer the exclusive preserve of bad managers.
I think that sums it up. Coupled with that we have this uncertainty in the additional impact of freight rates. I do not think there is any question about it. With all respect to the former Minister of Transport, I think the farmers have been taken to the cleaners on this western grain transportation Bill. Farmers have been sold a bill of goods. Freight rates are now rising much faster than projected. They were projected to rise by 58 per cent at the beginning of this crop year. That is certainly a lot more than was originally anticipated. The average is $7.70 a tonne. That is what the new rate is going to be. In some areas, however, that figure is $11, $12 and $13 a tonne, which has a tremendous impact. We know the safety net is not going to have any significant effect. We know the volume cap is really hurting here because of the increased sales. The farmer is picking up the full rate on anything over 31.5 million tonnes, and that is driving the rate up.
My good friend and colleague from Red Deer, when he quoted our agricultural critic, pointed out that the Government has a responsibility. The Government is asking the farmer to pay the full shot for the one year. Farmers should be paying only seven-twelfths, because the new regime did not go into effect until January. That is coupled with the aspect of the
Advance Payments
railways reneging on their investment, which was $16.5 billion, and is now $12.5 billion. Three hundred and seventy-five thousand jobs were to have been created but it is more like 155,000 jobs. What do we have now? I just received the Manitoba Co-operator. I see from it that there is another CTC hearing where the two national railways are seeking revisions to the cost of capital formula. If the railways get their way, it will add another $100 million to the freight bill.
I remember that when we were dealing with this Bill it was originally anticipated that there would be a 20.5 per cent return on capital investment. That was adjusted to 18 per cent. It seems that the railways are still not happy with that, so they have gone to the CTC. They want more. If they get their way, as this article points out, it will mean an additional $3 a tonne for freight rates, which will result in an additional $700 for the farmer. Coupled with all the difficulty we have, that is what is causing further apprehension and anxiety in the minds of the producers. They have no confidence in this group across the way, Mr. Speaker, because of the heavy influence of the railways on the activities and decision-making process of the Liberal Party.
We have Mr. Turner who is the leading leadership contender, still an active member of the board of directors of CPR. He is working very closely with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). As a matter of fact, the Minister of Transport is his policy adviser and western chairman. I note from this paper that Mr. Argue is a staunch supporter of Mr. Turner. I notice the former Minister is a staunch supporter of Mr. Turner, and of course there is Mr. Jack Horner. They are all in this game together. Then you have Mr. Ian Sinclair, the former Chairman of the CPR. He has been appointed to the Senate as a Liberal. We have Mr. Horner, a former chairman of the CNR, administering and managing the Grain Transportation Agency. This does not give producers much confidence, Mr. Speaker. That is why they are so pessimistic about the future. This whole thing is balanced too heavily in favour of the railroads. This will have to change.
The producers of this country are in serious trouble. When you have a situation where other countries are increasing their support to the farmers while we are reducing our support, we are in trouble.
I just picked up The Citizen. In an article in it it says that the new government in Argentina is going all out. The new government in Argentina is cutting taxes on fertilizer and herbicides and is reducing transportation costs to rebuild the agricultural industry.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Would you like their inflation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: While other countries are providing more support for their producers, Canada is reneging on its commitments and reducing its support. We will regret that some day. I call upon this Minister and this Government not only to move this Bill ahead but to bring on the stabilization Bill and other measures which will help alleviate the difficulties that farmers face today.

May 18, 1984
Advance Payments


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties. I think that if you seek unanimous consent, you will find agreement that we should move Bill C-23 into Committee of the Whole and finish all stages of the Bill this afternoon before we move on to Bill C-5.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We can certainly move on to Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the proposal put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans). Is it agreed?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We will move to Committee of the Whole stage by stage.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Pepin, for Mr. Axworthy, seconded by Mr. Gray, moves: that Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act be now read a second time and, by unanimous consent referred to a Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly the Bill stands referred to a Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent. The House went into committee thereon, Mr. Corbin in the chair.
Eymard G. Corbin: The House is in Committee of the Whole to consider Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-Maximum [English]


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to delay passage of this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council is quite right in saying we would like to pass this Bill through all stages today. But I want to take the opportunity at this time in Committee of the Whole on the first clause of the Bill to make a few observations. Then I want to put a question to the Minister for External Relations who is sitting in for the Minister of Transport.
First I want to associate myself with the remarks that have been made this afternoon by my colleagues and good friends from Red Deer and Vegreville-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: And Yorkton-Melville.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Indeed, Yorkton-Melville. I am going to deal with that in just a moment. But I simply want to say that the opportunity to discuss matters relating to agriculture in
Canada, particularly respecting western agriculture are few and far between in this Parliament. That is why I feel moved now to address a few remarks and to associate myself with some of the thrusts put forward by my colleagues from Red Deer and Vegreville. I want to remind the Government that this Bill gives us the opportunity to reflect upon the very serious lack of policy which this Government has had and continues to have with respect to Western Canada.
I listened to my colleague from Vegreville who, in the administration of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead was Minister of Transport. I know from personal experience the outstanding contribution which the Hon. Member made at that time. I recall the sensitivity he showed to the hopes and aspirations of western Canadians. I think of the approach that was taken in terms of the administration of the Right Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker, a western Prime Minister. The Conservative Party has had a tradition of dealing with matters relating to western agricultural problems. They are keen and sensitive to those issues. As pointed out by the Minister in introducing this Bill today, it was Mr. Diefenbaker who introduced the concept of advances on farm-stored grain. His Government brought forward the legislation which we are now amending.
I say with all the sincerity that I have in my body and person that, after the next federal election, it is my hope that we in this country will again have a federal Government that shows sensitivity, that understands the problems of western farmers, and that will include such people as my colleagues from Vegreville and Red Deer. They will be able to speak on behalf of western farmers. They have an idea of what is going on there, not like the paucity of initiatives and policies that we get from this Government.
I listened to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville speak in this debate. It reminded me of something that brings to light the changes in western Canada, particularly in the Province of Saskatchewan, which is the most significant and important grain-growing province in this country. My father ran in the federal riding of Yorkton on three occasions, and was not successful. He put up a good fight on behalf of the Conservative Party. At that time the constituency of Yorkton was represented by a Member of the CCF, Mr. G. H. Castelden.
We talk about the disappearance of the family farm in western Canada, Saskatchewan in particular. At the time my father was running on the federal political scene, there were 21 Members of Parliament in the House of Commons from Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan had more Members of Parliament than the Province of Alberta or the Province of British Columbia. At that time Saskatchewan had a higher population, in particular rural population. The family farm was the fabric of the province.
May 18, 1984

By virtue of the current legislation, we now have 14 seats. If there was a free-fall, Saskatchewan would only have 12 seats. Because of the legislation, we keep at least 14 seats. We can see the deterioration in terms of population, particularly rural population.
We have to look at what is happening in the agricultural sector. A very important economic sector is suffering greatly at this time. There are pressures of increased cost, increased interest rates and a static price for what they receive for their product. After imprecations and imploring by Members of this Party with respect to amending this Bill, we now have a Bill which, while welcome, merely increases the amount of money available for advances which can be made with respect to farm-stored grain. This is to be repaid by the farmers. It is a serious problem.
The Conservative Party has taken its responsibilities in Opposition and has forced the Government as best it can to bring forward legislation which will be of assistance to the western grain producer. It was by dint of our insistence and constant harassment of the Government that it is now coming forward with amendments to the western grain stabilization Bill.
When that Bill was first introduced in the House, we indicated some of the serious flaws and defects in it. We said the Bill was deficient inasmuch as it was not sensitive to what was happening in western Canada regarding western grain stabilization. Under that legislation, there would not be a substantial payment for a long time. This was because of the way in which the formula had been set out. We have now forced the Government to come forward with this legislation. It is committed to bringing it forward on Friday next. We are prepared to give that matter expeditious consideration, notwithstanding the very serious deficiencies and defects in it.
Let us look at the legislation now before us and some of the circumstances. My colleague from Vegreville referred to some of the problems faced by western grain producers at the present time, the prospect of bankruptcy for many producers and the other pressures they face. At this time when there are economic pressures on our farmers, including those in western Canada, freight rates will be increased by 33 per cent.
My colleague pointed out that a principal co-conspirator with respect to the Crowsnest Pass legislation, which was forced through this House by closure against the wishes of the western producer, was the Canadian Pacific Railway. The board of directors co-operated with this Government. They were the handmaiden in getting that legislation through. It is interesting to note that John Turner, now seeking leadership of the liberal Party was instrumental, as a member of the board of directors of CPR, in helping to write that legislation which is regarded with such distaste by every western producer. We now see the transformation taking place.
The Liberal Party is sending out siren calls to the western farmer and western Canadians generally about what it intends
Advance Payments
to do. The most interesting piece of hypocrisy that I have observed is the fact that the Minister of Transport is now supporting Mr. Turner and acting as his policy adviser in the leadership campaign.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Relevance to the Bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The relevance is that we talk about pressure on the farmers with respect to the cost of carrying on farm operations. We had a Bill foisted on us by this Government and on which closure was imposed. It involved a substantial increase in the cost of transportation for the farmer. It put pressure on western grain producers. What does the Minister of Transport advise Mr. Turner with respect to his statement on the Crowsnest Pass legislation? All of a sudden he advises him that the cap of 31 million tonnes is too low. Mr. Turner now says he will give serious consideration to increasing that level. Now he is making another promise at the behest of the Minister of Transport. Now he is going to give consideration to having a different safety net.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He refused to entertain any changes.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My colleague is right. We pressed on a number of occasions for precisely those changes in the legislation. They were rejected time after time. That is hypocrisy. The people of western Canada understand this kind of shenanigan. The western grain producers understand what is happening. They are not going to be taken in for one moment, Mr. Turner or no Mr. Turner.
While we appreciate that the Government has taken this initiative at long last, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville, pointed out that in our ten-point agricultural policy, which was released on April 5, 1983, we urged the Government to double the advance payments. In his Private Member's Bill C-218, the Hon. Member for Bow River urged the repeal of the provision in this Bill which was discrimination against farm women. That Private Member's Bill contained the very provision that was not supported by the Government at that time but was the forerunner of the provision in this Bill which urges the repeal of subsection 7(3.2).
I would simply like to ask a question of the Minister whose Bill is before the House today for passage. In view of the fact that the Government has taken this particular initiative with respect to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, and I am sure the Minister has had notice of my question because the Hon. Member for Elgin raised this matter yesterday, I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether or not the Government is considering increasing the level of advances with respect to the Advance Payments For Crops Act, which covers grain which falls outside of the Wheat Board's authority and which covers other crops as well. Perhaps the Minister would have that information for me, or perhaps he will be able to get it for me.
3888

May 18, 1984
Advance Payments
Notice was given of our Party's interest in making sure that farmers outside of the Wheat Board's authority are also treated with some equity.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not having the answer. It is because I was not given the notice. Perhaps my friend will pose a question on Monday or some other time and I will elucidate the answer to his question.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On Clause 2-


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, Clause 2 deals with paragraph 7.1(4) of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. This is the part which deals with payments in respect of tough grain. I have very little knowledge, Sir, of western agricultural affairs but I know that the Deputy Prime Minister, who used the term "tough grain" in his initial presentation today, has a great deal of such knowledge. I wonder if I might be permitted to ask him what tough grain is.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I do indeed have a lot of experience. During the speech of my hon. friend from Vegre-ville, reference was made to these difficult grain years, with the year 1968-69 being one of those dandies. We had a lot of damp grain at that time as well as tough grain. Dealing with the relationship between tough and damp, I know when something is tough and damp and I know when something is damned tough. However, I would not be able to elucidate that on the floor of the House this afternoon. I will send a learned essay on the subject to my friend.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 3 agreed to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 4 agreed to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall the Bill carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


RADIATION EMITTING DEVICES ACT
Pierre De Bané: that Bill C-5, an act to amend the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, the mandate and powers vested in the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Begin) cover all matters that relate to promoting and safeguarding the health of the Canadian people and lie within the jurisdiction of this Parliament.
Today, we are exposed to various forms of radiation emitted by an increasing number of industrial and consumer products. Information is released daily to the general public on the dangers of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. However, many people do not fully realize that as far as exposure to ionizing radiation is concerned, the greatest danger stem from X-rays. Medical use of X-rays accounts for over 90 per cent of total exposure due to artificial sources.
On the other hand, X-rays form an essential part of modern medical practice. It is believed that half of all vital decisions concerning the health of patients are based on radiological procedures.
We must protect ourselves against ionizing and non-ionizing radiation because exposure to these types of radiation may have harmful effects which are apparent not only in exposed individuals but also in their descendants. In 1972, the federal Government introduced the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, thereby taking responsibility for regulating the safety of radiation emitting devices imported and sold in Canada. Since that time, the Department directed by my hon. colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has developed and implemented regulations for various types of devices, including TV sets, dental X-ray equipment, microwave ovens, X-ray devices for baggage inspection, equipment for ultrasound therapy, X-ray equipment for diagnostic purposes and X-ray equipment for therapeutic use.
After considerable experience in developing and implementing these regulations, the limitations of the legislation became clear. The present amendments are aimed at consolidating the legislation. They will make it possible to add to the Radiation Emitting Devices Act some important changes I shall mention later on.
May 18, 1984



First, there is the extension of the scope of the Act to cover all electro-magnetic and acoustic frequencies. This, for example, would permit the establishment of a standard for radio frequency heaters. Many of these devices have been found to emit radiation at levels well in excess of currently accepted international standards. Extending the scope of the Act to include all acoustic frequencies would permit an assessment of the health effects of high levels of infrasound which come from air conditioning, heating and ventilating systems, compressors and large diesel engines. The biological effects which have been attributed to infrasound include hearing loss, involuntary eye movements, nausea, slowed reactions and fatigue.
Second, there is the extension of control of devices for which standards have not been prescribed and which are defective or create a risk of injury to the health of the user. Under the present Act, new types of radiation-emitting devices for which standards have not been prescribed can be sold even though these devices may be hazardous or ineffective. For example, new applications for the use of lasers are being discovered. However, in view of advancing technology in this area, the establishment of adequate safeguards in the form of standards could require an appreciable period of time.
The third point is the extension of the control of devices for which standards are applicable at the time of sale, importation or lease. Under the existing Act, radiation emitting devices manufactured outside of Canada, prior to the establishment of prescribed standards, can continue to be imported and sold indefinitely, even though these devices are potentially hazardous to Canadian users. For example, the dental X-ray equipment, which was manufactured more than ten years ago and considered to be substandard, may continue to be sold or leased under the present Act unless it is amended.
The fourth point is the prohibition of false or misleading representations with respect to the design, construction, performance and safety of radiation emitting devices. The present Act contains no restrictions on false or misleading claims made by manufacturers or distributors.
Finally, there would be a provision for notification of devices which create a risk of injury to health, or do not meet the prescribed requirements. This provision will require a manufacturer or importer to notify the Minister of any device which, after sale or lease, the manufacturer or importer finds to be injurious to health, or fails to perform according to the indicated performance characteristics.
My dear colleagues can readily see that these amendments to the Radiation Emitting Devices Act are essential for the regulatory control of radiation emitting devices that are potentially hazardous to the Canadian user and are not now subject to the provisions of the present legislation. Parliament passed a Bill early in the 1970s to control radiation, but after 12 years of experience we have discovered that there are circumstances which that law does not cover and which should be under legislation. Therefore, this Bill is to ask for the support of the
Radiation Emitting Devices Act
House to cover those other matters in order that the Department of National Health and Welfare will be able to protect the health of the Canadian people. In view of that, I would invite my colleagues to give speedy passage to this Bill.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, the first place we should start on radiation emitting devices is right here in this House. I have never been in any one room where so many people are forced to wear glasses. I am sure it is indirectly having a negative effect on our health, and that it is caused by electronic products.
I am concerned with the broadness of this Bill. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is aware, the Bill was originally drafted on September 12, 1979, by a Consrevative Minister. It is a little bit shocking that the Government has taken so long to upgrade this Bill, because each day there are new devices being developed and there are new problems resulting from the new devices. I agree that the Bill requires speedy passage. But there are problems and weaknesses in the Bill which were not in the original amendment submitted by the Conservative Minister in 1979.
First, the Bill should be restricted to radiation emitting devices. It should not, through the back door, be covering other noise levels, which are provincial territory. I am worried that the Bill will include such things as chain-saws. If a chain-saw is muffled to too great an extent, it does not have the same effect. That problem can be solved by wearing ear mufflers. I hope that the Minister is not intending to include such things as chain-saws, jackhammers, diesel engines and scrapers. That is not the intent of the Bill.
Originally, the Act was passed principally to cover X-ray equipment. It has now gone beyond that. As the Minister mentioned, it now includes lasers and video screens. There is a lot of doubt and a lot of misunderstanding concerning video screens. There are so many new technological changes in the workplace resulting from electronic devices that I agree the Bill must be broad enough to protect people from the hazards of the new devices of which we are not aware. However, I would be very annoyed if the Bill were designed in such a way as to protect, through the back door, against certain industrial noises which come under provincial jurisdiction.
I think the Bill will be given speedy reading, but it is our request that it be sent to committee and that it be examined carefully, clause by clause. It is a very serious Bill and it is particularly serious in this age of new technology. I would suggest that the Bill should only apply to new devices which are developed in the future arising out of new technology. It should not apply to the basic tools of construction and of other industries as that could have a negative effect on those industries at a time when we cannot afford to stop people from working.
Hopefully, with time things will improve. As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) pointed out, if the Bill is passed, it could have an effect on air conditioning and heating. I would like to point out to the Minister that perhaps we should deal, under this Bill, with some of the window air

May 18, 1984
Radiation Emitting Devices Act
conditioners in the House of Commons. People cannot work when those air conditioning units are operating. However, I do not think that that is the intent of this Act. It was certainly not the original intent. The intent is to protect people. Cases have been made regarding video terminals. People have argued that they have had a negative effect on pregnancy. There has been no proof of that, but I think we must investigate what are the effects on people.
Personally, I use a computer. I find that it is very tiring on my eyes to use that computer for more than 45 minutes to one hour at a time. There must be some hidden effect of which we are not aware and which we must address. I also feel that there must be an effect on children and that they must be suffering from watching television. Perhaps that should be looked at. Specifically, we should only be looking at electronic devices. Those devices should be monitored and vetted. I agree that they should be labelled and totally checked by analysts, as provided for in the Bill. That is what the Bill should address. It should not address the complaints of some people who are not directly affected. It is the do-gooders who do not like the noise. If we stop the machines, the noise stops but the people will have to stop working, and we cannot afford that today. Therefore, I think it is important that we remove the concept of industrial noise and make this very specifically "noise resulting from new technology in electronics".
There is one other area in the Bill which could be broadened. Possibly stereo systems could be allowed to play only at a certain level. I feel that is an infringement on the rights of the Canadian public. However, I must admit, as an individual, that there are many times when I would be delighted if people were not allowed to turn the noise level of their stereos up so high. I have raised children, so I am very much aware of this problem. I worry about their ears. But I do not believe we can regulate, or should regulate, that noise level.
As I said earlier, we must be careful in this Bill that we do not infringe upon the provincial areas of occupational health, which fall under the Workmen's Compensation Boards in the various provinces across this country, or which fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour in the various provinces.
I believe we have to be careful that we do not put ourselves in the position of going beyond our purpose.
With respect to the importation of radiation emitting devices, I believe the standards of those products are very important. There are many newly industrialized countries, NICs, which are producing these products with possibly lower standards than we require or are used to. We must ensure, when something is brought into Canada that it is not going to be a new danger to the people of this country. Radiation emitting devices are safe if proper safety standards are built in. But let us be very careful, before they are put on the consumer market or allowed to be sold in this country, that they are thoroughly tested so that ten years from now we do not find that we have problems in the health area because we had allowed these units in.
Labelling and packaging is very important. I notice some of the previous regulations call for signs. However, those signs do not really tell me enough. They do not give me the whole story. There must be warnings. For instance, I am not certain about microwave ovens. No one has satisfied me totally that there is not some radiation being emitted from them. I am concerned about children who are at home and have access to microwave ovens while their parents are at work. I am not satisfied that we have looked at all the ramifications with respect to the danger in the use of those units. I would like to have put in place some defence mechanism so that our health costs will not be affected in the future. If we make sure that there will not be illness resulting from these things, it will have a direct and positive effect on our health costs.
I agree with certain regulations in this Bill. I agree there are certain safety checks we must take. However, in this field, where there is a proliferation of new devices produced over the last few years, we must be very careful to have complete analyses dope, and a section should be added to define an analyst as a person designated by the Minister as an analyst under the Act. I do not believe that is stated clearly enough. I believe it must be someone with expertise in the field. I do not feel we can generalize and appoint a friend or acquaintance who happens to be adequate. Perhaps we should work this out with the provinces. It could be that they already have these people in their safety associations.
I would like to talk about manufacturers for a moment. Unfortunately, we do not produce a large amount of electronic equipment in this country. It is predominantly imported. We lost that industry because we did not move as quickly as the Japanese. We must make certain of who the manufacturer is, what the regulations are in the country of manufacture, and that the same standards which are acceptable in the country of origin apply. As well, they should meet the same standards as in the United States, which had these standards in place before us.
I have a great deal more to say on this subject but I do want to see this Bill go through second reading today, and I understand there are two more speakers. However, I want to say that we must be careful that we deal directly with radiation emitting devices and do not broaden the Bill beyond its scope. This is a very specific field with which we must deal. We must not get mixed up with other things, because if we do it will water this Bill down.
Having said that, I thank the House for bearing with me in my few remarks and I look forward to having a further discussion on this subject when we get the Bill to committee.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, this Bill amending the legislation which controls radiation emitting equipment is one which should be adopted whether in its present form or with any amendments. It is not a new idea. This is a Bill which has been updated from time to time as our legislation tries to catch up with new developments in industry.
I wish to speak about two specific points in the Bill and then add one generalization. The two points are, first, the matter of
May 18, 1984

acoustics and, second, the matter of video screens. I wish to comment generally that the consideration which should be given when approaching this subject should be much wider and deeper.
With respect to acoustics, I am not opposed to having this Bill cover the subject of sound waves and excessive sound. I have worked in industry. I have also been an alderman in a downtown area of a large city. I know that in the modern world, loud noise is becoming a serious problem. I do not believe it was, perhaps, in my parent's or grandparent's time, but in our time it is, and it has to be controlled. The instruments for controlling loud noise are not yet well developed and must be worked on.
I believe this legislation, if properly used, does not have to have the bad results which the previous speaker fears. It could, but it does not have to. What is needed is to develop precise criteria, test equipment and techniques as they are brought into the market. Rather than waiting for 10, 20 or 30 years of complaints, we must make it politically necessary to do something in a hurry. It is the same with video screens, televisions or microwave ovens, which might have bad effects on genetics and on the reproductive prospects of our people. I may be biased in favour of children. I have ten grandchildren. I am concerned when I hear of the long-range and often unpredictable effects of radiation. I would like to see us provide the framework for controlling and, if necessary, restricting devices found to have harmful genetic effects. That is one of the amendments before us today. It does not necessarily automatically ban new equipment. It does suggest that we have to develop precise criteria for the use of new equipment for processes and we have to test them early, not after we have found a whole generation or two generations of genetic defects.
This brings me to a point I am very much concerned with. As I say, having worked in industry and having represented the residents of an extremely busy and intense downtown district for almost nine years, I find that we are always being told that we cannot hinder progress. It would hurt the economy if we stopped these new processes or restricted these new kinds of equipment. Let them go ahead and maybe they will not hurt anyone. Who knows? Let us wait another ten years or 50 years to see whether asbestos is going to hurt anyone. That was the attitude more than a generation ago when asbestos was known by those responsible to be harmful. Let us not apply the "miner's canary" technique to our children. A canary was carried down in the mine by the miner so that if it fell over, the miner knew he should get out of there because there was poison gas in the mine and it would get him soon after the canary. Our children are delicate. Let us not wait until they are harmed before we test and, where necessary, let us restrict and correct the equipment to be used.
That will cost money, Mr. Speaker. Whether it is the federal or provincial Government the ultimate reason given for neglecting these new health hazards is that they do not have enough inspectors or the inspectors do not have enough equip-
Radiation Emitting Devices Act ment. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have and use the wonderful labour saving devices which modern science enables us to create, if we are going to have one person do the work of 100 through these new machines, then we have an opportunity to find useful work for the other 99. A few of them can economically be put to work testing the new substances, the thousands of new and poisonous chemicals in industry, the many new potential radiation hazards we have from new equipment. They can be tested. We can hire the technicians and the inspectors, and we can buy the equipment to do the testing.
I hope this Bill will provide a framework for doing that. It will still be up to governments to decide to spend the money to enforce this legislation in an intelligent way, and I hope that will be done. I hope that whatever discussions there may be in committee, they will not shut off that possibility but will, rather, open it up.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the Government will undoubtedly be pleased to hear that I can confirm there is a disposition on this side to deal with this Bill by the appointed time and have it sent on its merry way to the proper committee.
Having read the Bill, I approve in general of the legislation. The principle of the Bill is to widen slightly the definition of radiation emitting devices, not in the way that the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) read it, because we do have difficulties with very broad interpretations. But if the principle is to widen it somewhat to deal with new types of equipment coming on the market, then we will be pleased to see this Bill go into committee for further study.
Reference has been made to radiation associated with products like microwave ovens and televisions. Television has been with us a long while and I believe the amount of radiation emitted from the average colour TV set has been reduced considerably over the last little while. But we still have something to worry about with children who spend a lot of time sitting very close to television sets.
There is a question about the harmful effects that cathode ray tubes from video screens might have, especially on pregnant female operators. I would imagine that this is why we have included in the amendments to this Bill the term "genetic injury", whereas previously we had confined ourselves to death and personal injury. I think there is considerably more research needed into the dangers associated with these types of radiation emitting devices. Certainly it will be difficult to determine the long-run genetic effects of low levels of radiation to which people might be subjected over an extended period of time. We might want to look at transferring some of these radiation emitting devices, not those of the X-ray or gamma-ray type, but those types that emit alpha particles and beta particles presently covered, I believe, under the Atomic Energy Control Act. These are becoming numerous because they are not only used in atomic energy production but are showing up quite frequently in many walks of industrial life. Given that, it might be more appropriate to deal with some types of alpha and beta radiation emitting devices under this

Regulatory Reform
Act rather than under the Act by which they are presently covered. I am thinking about bore hole logging devices used in the oil industry and new types of equipment coming on stream for in situ analysis in mines, a kind of instant assay equipment. That might be better dealt with under this legislation.
I just wanted to say that the regulations form an integral part of this Bill. Hopefully, they will be available for study in committee. I have looked at the search and seizure provisions of this Bill and they seem to be quite acceptable. The penalty clause of the present Act might be changed to bring it more into line with this inflationary period, as well as similar Acts of Parliament and statutes of provincial legislatures. In closing, I repeat that in principle we on this side are in favour of this Bill.

Mr. De Bane (for the Minister of National Health and
Welfare) moved that Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social
Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order. It being five o'clock, consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 2(1), this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 22, 1984, at 11 a.m.\nAt 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Tuesday, May 22, 1984']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 105 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Donald Frank Mazankowski: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should, as soon as possible, convene a federal-provincial-territorial conference on regulatory reform to begin the process of simplifying and streamlining the regulatory burden on the Canadian economy.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is selfexplanatory. It calls upon the Government to convene a federal-provincial-territorial conference to deal with the scaling down of the regulatory burden in the country. I think that such an initiative would be timely and very important. We all recognize the fact that our economy is undergoing a very major adjustment in terms of our survival. The reality of the 1980s is that in order for us to survive in the international marketplace we must be competitive. That means that we must establish the kind of environment which would be conducive to allowing the competitive spirit of enterprise, efficiency and innovation to flourish.
I would like to detail what is happening in Canada to some extent vis-a-vis our trading partners and competing countries with respect to the total economic picture. I guess we are really talking about the global picture. The objective is to reduce costs and cut out inefficiency and waste. Over the last 30 years we have built up a very heavy bureaucratic and regulated structure. All statistical data and studies will clearly reveal that this is imposing enormous costs, not only on individual Canadians, but on industry and its ability to compete. There is no question that it is hampering our efforts to be competitive.
A recent study by the European Management Forum ranked Canada eleventh out of 22 countries in terms of our competitive ability. It is interesting that it is in precisely the same position in terms of the regulatory burden. That becomes a very important component in the over-all assessment of the criteria which are taken into consideration.
The European Management Forum is an independent nonprofit foundation based in Switzerland. It has been preparing international competitiveness comparisons for five years. Some 284 factors are taken into consideration. I would like to quote briefly from the report. It says:
As far as the statistical side goes, it's not very surprising that Canada has lost ground, as many numbers have been depressed by what was the worst recession of any industrial country.
It then goes on to identify some of the components which are considered. For example, in industrial efficacy, that is productivity, labour costs and profitability, Canada ranked fifteenth out of the 22 countries which were surveyed. In outward orientation, that is foreign trade and investments and attitudes, Canada ranked fourteenth out of the 22 countries surveyed. In innovative forward orientation, that is R and D and adaptability to future requirements, Canada ranked fifteenth out of 22 countries. I believe that all of those components are relative and pertinent to our ability to compete more effectively and to be more flexible and innovative. We do not stack up very well in those areas. A lot of it stems back to the
May 18, 1984

regulatory burden which has been imposed year after year upon industry, both from within and outside of industry and particularly by Government.
Productivity growth is another interesting point to consider. During the period of 1977 to 1982, Canada registered an improvement of .3 per cent. Japan, on the other hand, showed a productivity growth rate of 27.6 per cent; Germany, 14.7 per cent; France, 22.3 per cent and the United States, 3.6 per cent.
1 cite those, Mr. Speaker, because those are countries with which we compete head to head.
The Economic Council of Canada made a report in 1981. Unfortunately, this report gathers dust. There have been a few initiatives taken, but very little of a constructive nature has emerged. The Economic Council of Canada did a rather detailed and in-depth study and analysis with respect to the amount of regulation in our country. It has estimated that close to 30 per cent of domestic product is subject to direct and significant regulation. Almost every sector that we can think about is regulated in some way, shape or form. The Council concluded that Canadians are over-regulated. The Economic Council of Canada is paid for by the taxpayers. It was set up to advise Government and Parliament on current issues of the day. It said that Canadians are over-regulated, resulting in waste, inefficiency and higher prices. It recommended that the economy be stripped of regulations and that incentives, rather than punishment, be used to respond to social concerns.
It is difficult to assess in accurate terms what the cost of the regulatory burden was. These statistics were taken some years ago so I suspect we could automatically increase them by a certain percentage factor. The Council said that between $35 million and $50 million was spent annually by Bell Canada, a cost which had to be passed on to the consumer as a result of over-regulation. The regulatory burden of Dow Chemical in 1978 amounted to some $20 million. The EEC stated that the licensing process in the trucking industry alone cost some $40 million annually. It also stated that there were indirect costs associated with restrictions and operating inefficiencies. There was a lot of deadheading. That is, a trucker was licensed to haul a load to a certain point but could not bring a load back. That reduces the operating efficiency by 50 per cent.
It has been stated in the study that some $1.5 billion will be spent in the eight-year period of the National Energy Program on supervising and regulating the oil industry. There is a well known statement that prior to the National Energy Program there was one bureaucrat for every three geologists in the oil industry. Now it is just the reverse. There are something like three bureaucrats for every geologist. It is said that just to operate the CTC, the NEP, the CRTC, the Atomic Energy Control Board and FIRA will cost in excess of $100 million.
We have noted something rather interesting during the process of deflation which occurred during the last two or three years. Unregulated prices responded more accurately to the realities in the marketplace than regulated prices. We found that during that period of deflation, the regulatory prices were going up much faster than the unregulated prices.
Regulatory Reform
It is disturbing that the recommendations of the Economic Council have not been transformed into action. The report is only gathering dust. Some initiatives have been taken but there has been little in the way of action.
The Special Committee of the House on Regulatory Reform reported in December of 1980. There has been no significant response from the Government in that connection. The Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments issued its fourth report on regulatory procedures in July, 1980, but there has been no significant response in that connection.
At the same time, the Government is urging Canadians and industry to trim the fat, to be more productive, efficient, innovative, flexible and dynamic. It has been pointing a finger at industry but has not been leading the way or demonstrating by example. It is contradictory because the Government has demonstrated little leadership in terms of scaling down the burden of regulation which it imposes on the industry. I can cite numerous examples of that.
There are the initiatives of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) with respect to the airlines. I believe that that is clearly a step in the right direction, but the fact of the matter is that again a finger is being pointed at the industry to develop a more lean, efficient, productive and innovative industry, while the Government is not moving any distance at all toward untangling the regulatory burden that it has imposed upon the operation of the airport system.
We are fortunate that we now have some clear examples and experiences from other countries about the effects of regulatory reform, scaled down regulations or outright deregulation. We can certainly benefit from those experiences and take into consideration the progress or lack of progress in certain areas. Let us use the United States as an example.
It is stated that in the airline industry, long distance airline fares have decreased by 50 per cent in seven years. Again in the United States, trucking rates are down by 30 per cent in real terms since 1980. When I talked to a transportation expert from the United States one day I was told that the result of deregulating the trucking industry in the United States increased the capacity of the fleet by 50 per cent without adding a new vehicle. That is how badly the regulatory burden strangled the trucking industry. It just increased its available capacity by roughly 50 per cent.
Again in the United States, the cost of buying stock by small investors through discount brokers is 60 per cent of the commissions charged by the old line houses. Ten thousand new trucking operations were started and 14 new airlines were launched since 1978. The U.S. airline industry provided 19 per cent more output, that is in available seat miles, with one per cent more employees in 1982 as compared to 1978. Those are clear examples.
The reality of the 1980s is simply that we must be more competitive, productive and efficient. We must produce a quality product at an attractive price in order to penetrate the international marketplace. As Canadians, we must export to

May 18, 1984
Regulatory Reform
survive because 30 per cent of our Gross National Product is generated through exports.
Why do we need a federal-provincial-territorial conference? It is primarily because the regulatory burden is imposed not simply and only by the federal Government, it is imposed by provincial and municipal governments. There is considerable overlapping and duplication. There is extensive complexity in the regulations that are being imposed. In many cases they are an impediment and a detriment to the activity of a free-flowing enterprise system. Due to our split jurisdictional nature in this country, it is important that we wrestle with this problem on a federal-provincial basis.
During the last ten years in particular there has been a confrontational kind of approach taken by the federal Government, which has meant that there has not been a good relationship between the federal Government and the provinces. Consequently, the co-operative environment has clearly been tarnished very badly. As a result, not only do individual Canadians lose but business enterprises lose as well.
We have been tending to build up barriers and regulations which impede trade and commerce. I recall a study that was conducted by the Ontario Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce wherein it was stated, in an analysis of the burden of regulations and the obstacles and impediments to the free flow of interprovincial trade, that we have more barriers and obstacles in Canada than exist in the European Economic Community. That simply must stop. We must preserve the Canadian economic unit. We have to return to the realization that we are a federalist system and we must restore the political and economic partnership that is so important in this country. By reviving the spirit of co-operation and working together, a conference of this nature would clearly pave the way for the necessary deregulation in many areas. Currently, the trucking industry is faced with intense pressure from the deregulated environment of the United States. Trucking is an industry that is virtually controlled by provincial governments. There must be a means of developing a greater degree of uniformity and compatibility of the rules and regulations as they relate to the trucking industry from province to province.
There is also much confusion in the jurisdiction relating to labour codes and occupational health and safety. Many businesses do not comply simply because of the myriad of regulations being promulgated. We are preoccupied and hear much in the House today about the need for job creation. Sometimes we are counterproductive because, while we implore industry and everyone else to take action to create jobs, we frustrate that ability to create jobs as a result of the excessive regulatory burden. That is a clear example of how we are sometimes counterproductive in the House.
The federal-provincial conference of which I speak is only one of a series of initiatives that I believe should be undertaken. I suggest that it is a laudable objective and a very practical, commonsense approach. We can also consider other approaches, such as the suggestion made by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association that a two-year moratorium be imposed on new regulations that do not contribute directly to
economic growth. That proposal was made in 1982. As well, it seems to me that all regulations and regulatory agencies should be subject to a sunset provision and periodic review, so that when they are put in place they do not remain for years and years without compulsory review.
Once again, leadership can be shown through a commitment from all levels of government to reduce the regulatory burden. I believe that deregulation in this country is inevitable. I think most Canadians agree that in order for this country to grow and prosper we must become more competitive, aggressive and market-oriented. I believe that Canadians will no longer put up with interventionist type of policies that we have had during the last ten years, coupled with huge deficits and an overregulated environment.
We believe, as I am sure many Members of the House do, that the experience in the United States with respect to deregulation of transportation, communications and finance and the various free trade initiatives that are under way, as reflected by the GATT tariff negotiations and the trend toward a more flexible and loose economic environment, are all signals that we should get on with the job. I believe that in this country our industries are strong enough to compete with the best of them in the international marketplace if they are freed up and allowed to function in a free-wheeling manner. I think our business people and our industries would welcome the kind of flexible, competitive environment of which I speak. I do not believe the Government should delay any longer. I do not think we have to import deregulation from the United States. We are a unique and sovereign country. We can develop our approach to deregulation in a unique Canadian way and in a thoughtful and orderly manner in consultation with other administrations and industry. It is a challenge that we all have. This is one step further in achieving and meeting that challenge. I commend it to the House for favourable consideration.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the subject of regulatory reform. It is a subject of great importance and has been treated as such by this Government. In saying that, I am obviously taking issue with my hon. friend from Vegreville.
At a time of economic difficulty, regulatory reform takes on an even greater significance than at other times. Because of this, the Government has followed a policy for several years now of promoting regulatory reform that will assure maximum efficiency and a minimum possible instrusion of regulations in the private sector.
The motion before us suggests that the federal Government should convene a federal-provincial-territorial conference on regulatory reform. That is in effect the substance of the motion. It recognizes the fact, therefore, that no single level of government can resolve the multitude of regulatory reform issued by itself. In fact, my hon. friend has already referred to that point, that it requires involvement not only of the federal
May 18, 1984

government but of governments of other jurisdictions as well, for instance, provincial, municipal, and so on. Indeed, the impetus for regulatory reform in Canada emerged from a federal-provincial meeting of First Ministers in 1978. Ever since that time work on regulatory reform has been going on at all levels of Government.
I should mention, moreover, that a federal-provincial-territorial committee of officials was established in 1978 to monitor the outcome of the regulation reference undertaken at the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) request by the Economic Council of Canada.In other words, already in 1978 a committee was set up of federal, provincial and territorial bodies to monitor just this very problem.
I understand that that committee of officials has met occasionally, most recently in 1982. I understand also that the chairman of the committee, the co-ordinator of Treasury Board's office of regulatory reform, has been in recent contact with his provincial and territorial counterparts and colleagues for the very purpose of assessing their interest in a further meeting sometime in the next few months. In that respect, the motion is somewhat redundant since it proposes action that has already been initiated and which, subject to provincial and territorial wishes, will take place.
The motion is also a bit off-base in suggesting that work on simplifying and streamlining the regulatory burden on the Canadian economy has yet to begin. At least at the federal level, Mr. Speaker, the work began long ago and it is continuing at a strong pace, I suggest. It was in 1978 that the Economic Council undertook its major regulation reference at the request of federal and provincial governments. Its massive study resulted in a large quantity of valuable research and in 66 recommendations, which have acted as an important base and catalyst for ongoing work during the past three years both at the federal and provincial levels of government.
Hon. Members are no doubt fully aware, moreover, of the excellent work of the Special Committee of the House on Regulatory Reform, chaired by my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson), whose riding is just to the north of my riding of Eglinton-Lawrence. He chaired that committee and its results are, I am sure, well known to every Member of the House and, I hope, to all Canadians.
The recommendations of these and other studies have provided a firm basis for the Government's regulatory reform work plan. The far reaching scope and impact of the recommendations and the ensuing work plan led the Government to establish a special office of regulatory reform in the Treasury Board with the specific mandate of promoting and co-ordinating the Government's regulatory reform program. Obviously it is no new idea.
Since the motion refers to "regulatory burden"-those are the words used in the text of the motion-I would like to draw particular attention to three major accomplishments of the federal regulatory reform program whose specific target was the simplification and streamlining of the regulatory process. To begin with, the Government introduced legislation repeal-
Regulatory Reform
ing 124 pieces of redundant or unnecessary legislation. This was enacted in July, 1983 and proclaimed in force on December 1, 1983. While I would not claim that this legislation constituted an enormous step forward in terms of regulatory reform, I regard it, nevertheless, as an important move because of the principle it underlined, namely, that laws and regulations should be regularly reviewed and, wherever they are no longer absolutely necessary, should be removed. That is an important principle for all legislators to bear in mind.
We have continued our review of legislation and may wish to propose a Bill repealing a further substantial number of statutes later this year.
Of greater immediate impact on the private sector, Hon. Members will recall that they approved legislation simplifying and reducing records retention requirements imposed on the private sector with the passage of Bill C-119 in July, 1983. This legislation, which was also proclaimed in force in December, 1983 will result in an estimated $100 million of savings to the private sector per year. We are studying the potential for further reforms of this type which have the potential for additional substantial cost savings for the private sector, particularly for the small business community.
Speaking of simplifying and streamlining, Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud of the program of regulatory agendas which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) introduced on an experimental basis about a year ago. It is a program involving publication of upcoming regulatory initiatives by federal Departments and agencies. Initially, the program covered 14 Departments and agencies, but with the addition later this year of the Department of Finance, the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, and the Department of Insurance, the program will cover a total of 17 federal entities, thereby providing a kind of early warning mechanism to the private sector for virtually all the federal Government's regulatory intentions. This has two important effects. By putting the Government's regulatory cards on the table well in advance of the implementation of regulations, the agendas greatly simplify public information and involvement in the regulatory process at a time when it counts most, that is to say, before the regulation is in place. Moreover, the discipline of the regulatory agendas and the heightened opportunities for consultation they encourage has had, in my view, the effect of contributing to the streamlining of the regulatory process.
As an additional dimension of the regulatory agenda's project, the President of the Treasury Board recently announced the introduction of an electronic version of the agendas. This was a significant step taken by the federal Government. Electronic publishing clearly offers an exceptional means of making information on the Government's activities available to a much wider range of the Canadian public.
A growing number of households are purchasing microcomputers and, through the adaptation of Canada's world leading video technology, Telidon, software carrying the regulatory

May 18, 1984
Regulatory Reform
agendas is now available for use on most types of personal computers found in hundreds of thousands of homes and, I might underline, hundreds of thousands of offices throughout this country.
The electronic publishing of regulatory agendas is just the first step in a new mode of communication between government and the public, which offers enormous potential. 1 can see the day, for example, when every Member of Parliament will have a personal computer in his or her office, and will be able to tap into an information system that will provide up-to-the minute data on the latest status of legislation, regulations or other matters of special interest.
Clearly, there is enormous capacity for adapting new technology to the purposes of Government. I am proud that the Government's regulatory reform program has taken something of a lead in the world exploring these possibilities with its regulatory agendas program. Those of us who know the difficulties for small businesses in being able to know what is happening in the world with regard to competition, appreciate their need for information. Going into this field will make available through the electronic medium tapping in quickly and the ability to know not only what are the inhibitions, but what are the opportunities that will be provided to them as entrepreneurs.
I have emphasized the omnibus repeal and records retention legislation and the regulatory agendas program because of their immediate relevance to the motion. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to expand at great length on all the other areas of regulatory reform in which the Government has been active. However, Hon. Members are well aware of the major proposals relating to federal regulation in such areas as airlines, fisheries, occupational health and safety, broadcasting and telecommunications. Indeed, it is hard to think of any Department or agency of the federal Government that has not been addressing the issue of regulatory reform for the past few years.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) for the innovation and wisdom of the new Canadian airline policy which he announced last week. Although the media has tended to refer to the new policy as one of deregulation, it is more accurate to describe it as regulatory reform or, even more accurately, as liberalization.
This is not just a matter of semantics. It is important to recognize the difference between deregulation and regulatory reform. It is very important to understand that distinction. They are not synonymous. As I see it, deregulation is one type of regulatory reform. Indeed, it is the most extreme type of reform because it involves the abandonment of a previously regulated area. There has been reason sometimes, if not always, in the mind of the public to have areas regulated. An extreme course will rarely be the most desirable course of action.
In the United States, airline regulatory reform has indeed gone a long way, and the economic aspects of the industry are largely deregulated. However, there remain stringent regulations on air safety in the United States and these, if anything, have been made tougher than before economic deregulation was introduced. Therefore, regulatory reform can imply both a reduction and a strengthening of regulation.
We in the Government view regulatory reform in that way. Sometimes it should mean less regulation, sometimes it should mean more. We just heard discussion about the dangers of genetic damage to people's bodies in the work place. In other words, people sometimes try for more regulation in certain areas. However, it should always be consistent with the most efficient and effective way to achieve national objectives.
The reform proposed by the Minister of Transport in the case of our new air policy provides a distinctly Canadian blend, allowing for gradual and responsible progress to a more competitive and less regulated air industry, without throwing the baby out with the bath water. Treasury Board's office of regulatory reform has worked closely in the development of these regulatory reform proposals. I think they reflect just how serious our commitment to regulatory reform is.
In short, I am very proud of the record of this Government which has achieved and will continue to achieve major reform wherever it is needed to promote the economic and social development of this country.
I have many industries and businessmen in my riding. I understand the profound concern which they have expressed to ensure that regulations not be redundant or useless but meaningful. I support the steps the federal Government has been taking in the past and in the present. I trust it will continue in the future to press hard to make us effective, efficient and competitive in world markets and at the same time respond to the hundreds of letters I receive every month from people expressing their anxieties and concerns about the dangers in the work place or, in terms of the environment, of chemicals, activities and so on that might endanger them. We have to think of regulations in terms of those needs. We will continue our policy of regulation where absolutely necessary and deregulation wherever possible.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the comment of the previous speaker. He demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge of the whole field of regulation in this country, demonstrated that somebody else had written the speech for him and demonstrated that this Government keeps apologizing for not doing anything in the field of regulation and deregulation, except in a cosmetic way.
The Hon. Member mentioned with great pride that the Government had thrown out 132 sets of regulations and Bills and so forth, a very brilliant thing to do, obviously something of which they can be proud. If you looked at them closely, you would find that no longer do we have regulations governing the use and manufacture of buggy whips. That is what the Government did, not anything meaningful in terms of deregulation.
In 1981, at a cost of $3 million to the Canadian taxpayer, the Economic Council of Canada came out with two major studies dealing with reforming regulations. There were 66
May 18, 1984

major recommendations. I ask the members of the Liberal Government how many of those 66 recommendations have been implemented. Practically none.
I also bring to the attention of the Government that in December, 1980, the Special Committee on Regulatory Reform reported. That is an interesting committee. It indicates the sweet innocence of a new Member of Parliament at the time. I joined this House in 1979 and had the great privilege and pleasure of being appointed Vice-Chairman of the Special Committee on Regulatory Reform. I worked during the fall of 1979 and the fall of 1980 on our report, which was published in December, 1980, and contained 27 very strong and good recommendations. I would add that the Liberal Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson), who chaired the committee, chaired it on a totally non-partisan basis. Seven of us worked very hard on the entire subject. The only problem was that the Government practically ignored the report. The major recommendations contained in the report, which might have caused some real reform in subsequent years, have not been implemented.
As an example of that, I note today that the Chairman of that committee, the Hon. Member for Willowdale, has been flitting in and out of the House but is not prepared to speak on this particular motion today. The reason he is not speaking on it is, I am sure, that he would have to agree with me when I say that, in terms of what the Government has done, we spent a useless six months.


Mr. Peterson:: Nonsense.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I would hope that the Hon. Member would get to his feet and attempt to defend the lack of action on the part of the Government with regard to the whole question.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Balderdash.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: The Hon. Member has used the word "balderdash". The major recommendation contained in the report, which was agreed to by all seven members of the committee, was that there be a special committee set up by this House which could deal with the Departments and look at these regulations that were being proposed and at what had been done in the past. We recommended that this committee hold public hearings at which the Minister could be present to be embarrassed by the stupidity of his regulators. Was that done? Of course it was not done. The Government is not interested in deregulation. This Liberal Government is not interested in real reform. It likes things the way they are. It likes government by regulation and not by the House of Commons. It likes regulations passed by statutes so that the Minister has complete discretion over what the law of the land will be. That is the objection that we have to regulations.
I have heard the previous speaker say what a great thing it is that the airlines are being deregulated. Those recommendations have been around for years, and now all of a sudden we are getting to them. We could look at all kinds of regulations
Regulatory Reform
about which nothing has been done. We have a Cabinet of over 30 people. They are bragging about the fact that fewer than half of the Departments are now doing something about deregulation, or at least thinking about it in a persuasive way.
If you talk to any businessman in the country, Mr. Speaker, he is likely to tell you two or three things. One of them is that there are too many regulations, he has too many forms to fill out, and he cannot talk to the people who make the regulations. Recommendations to deal with that complaint are contained in a special committee report and in the Economic Council report, both of which are over four years old now. What have government Members done about this? They are not interested in listening to the people. They may be interested in listening to the people for the next six months now that there is an election pending, but certainly all the work that this innocent, sweet, little Member of Parliament did in terms of the Special Committee on Regulatory Reform was useless. That innocent Member of Parliament expected to see flow from that committee something worthwhile to Canada, something meaningful, something that would save money and something that would help business in the country get ahead.
Out of the recommendations contained within that report, which ones were adopted? The easy ones, the simple ones, the ones that did not rock the boat, the ones that did not embarrass anyone, and the ones that did not have full meaning in terms of the Canadian business community were the ones that were adopted. As far as I am concerned, the $150,000 that was spent on this Special Committee on Regulatory Reform was wasted. At least it did not cost the $10 million that the royal commission set up by the Government is costing. At least there were some useful things contained within its report.
Quite frankly, I think that if we were to give lie detector tests to the Cabinet Ministers of the country, the people who theoretically run the country, I bet we would find that fewer than five of them even read the report that was produced and that each of those five who did read the report shook their heads and said: "We are not going to have that kind of thing going on in my Department. It may embarrass me. My senior bureaucrats will not like it. We might actullay have to get rid of some regulations or change some things." They have not changed anything.
Anyone could look at the record of the Government over the last few years and see that there has been very little reform, and we are talking about reform today. In a few moments I would like to read from a speech I once made, because it makes sense today. I read that speech with some chagrin and a sense of deja vu. I had the opportunity to speak to the Economic Council of Canada about the Special Committee on Regulatory Reform back in 1981. What I said then has equal application and equal meaning today because the Government did not do anything. Nothing has happened.
There are a few points I would like to make from that speech. Obviously I will not read it all. Quite frankly, I am afraid to read it all because it would probably make me cry to realize how ineffectual the Liberal Government has been and what little it has done in this matter. I simply had to bring this

May 18, 1984
Regulatory Reform
up today because it has been a sore spot with me for years. I can assure the Canadian public that if there is a change in Government, they will finally see some meaningful changes to the way regulations are made, the way they are implemented and the people who are consulted when they are made. Westerners will be consulted as well. In fact, our report pointed out that in many cases, small businessmen felt that the regulators were regulating for the benefit of the big companies and not for the benefit of the small companies. I have not seen any change to that situation over the years, and that is criminal as well.
An office of the co-ordinator of regulatory reform was set up, but it was only a persuasive body. How does one control a government using only persuasion? Quite frankly, one must hit this Liberal Government over the head. It is the old story of the donkey and the two-by-four. First one must get its attention, and that cannot be done persuasively. However, if we had a proper parliamentary committee, as recommended in the report, a committee that could call the Minister before it and says: "What is this stupid regulation that your Department is proposing," and have him defend his regulation, I think we would have fewer and better regulations than we do now.
Let me refer to the speech I gave in 1981. I would sincerely hope that every businessman who heard it then will remember it now, because they were prophetic words. At that time I said that everything was great but that we should take a look at what the Government would do. After I made my speech, I told those businessmen to watch the Government and see if all of its good words meant anything, see if it would pay any attention to the Economic Council of Canada, and see if it would pay any attention to the task force on regulatory reform. I told them that there was no question about the fact that the Government would do a few things and, to give it credit, it has done a few relatively unimportant and minor things. It has certainly not done anything that could embarrass the Government and it has certainly not done anything that would relieve the burden on the business community of the country. As I said in my speech of 1981:
I mention this because I do not believe there will be real meaningful regulatory reform until Jeremy Bentham's pain and pleasure principle can be applied to bureaucrats.
Well, that principle has not come to the fore.
The test will come this fall-
At that time, I meant the fall of 1981.
-as to how really serious this Government is about cleaning up the regulatory mess. One of the task force recommendations was for a special committee on regulations composed of no more than ten members, dedicated to the work, and with an adequate staff to do the vital research. This committee should have the power to review any new or old regulation for that matter. It should have the power to summon witnesses and should have a mandate large enough to disallow improperly processed regulations and censure Departments for not having done their homework. It should be a committee that any businessman, labour organization, consumer association or any special interest group could put their case to and have the Department answer fully their concerns. There is no such mechanism in the Canadian Government at this time. There is no way except lobbying the Department to get a hearing and many times that is mere formality and courtesy.
The committee was never set up. It should have been. Unfortunately, it became clear in our research at that time that there was a mental set in some Departments according to which, if there was a problem, a regulation was made. Alternatives, costs and consultation did not necessarily receive the attention they deserved before implementation. It was true four years ago and it is true today. I went on to say:
When so very much of the law we live under is subordinate law making by bureaucrats in the form of regulations such a committee of Parliament could play a vital role in protecting all of us from excess.
This Government would not agree with that. This Government would not do it for fear of embarrassment. I went on:
There is a downside-
At least I was fair, and I point this out:
There is the possibility of embarrassment for the Minister of the Crown concerned. But that spur is what is needed to ensure that subordinate lawmaking be really in the public interest.
I challenged the Government then and I challenge it now: Why does it not make Parliament more meaningful? I had such a hope, and in 1981 I said: "But you be the judge ... when the Government brings in its proposals for reform of the committee system". I went on to say that it would give them a real insight into how serious the Government was about regulatory reform.
Anyone who was watching saw how serious the Government was. It was not very serious at all. I would hope that perhaps with a Bill such as this we could start the process. At least the matter would be brought back to the public's attention so that they would realize that they have a Government that does not give a damn about regulatory reform. Every businessman in the country is suffering from that neglect. It is costing them money and, in many cases, it is needless. I sincerely hope that those businessmen remember what this Government has done to them when they get to the ballot box.
My final point is that the Economic Council reports are first rate. The research had been done and the recommendations had been presented. There has been some small activity by the Government. But what was in that economic report and what was in the report of the Special Committee on Regulatory Reform was another couple of Glasco reports upon which the Government will not act because it simply might embarrass it.
I will close by saying simply: God help the poor Canadian businessman if he does not realize who is doing these terrible things to him. The Government does the work, but then it ignores it. A Progressive Conservative Government will not ignore it.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the two opposition speakers and the one government speaker on this particular question. First, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and acknowledge the job which he has done in raising this issue about regulatory reform and the burden of regulation which is on the private sector in Canada. I would also like to thank my colleague, the Hon.
May 18, 1984

Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille), who joined in the debate and who put some of the positive contributions of the Government into perspective.
I would like to return to the remarks of the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) who, as the ViceChairman of the Committee on Regulatory Reform, worked very diligently. He worked side by side with us to try to bring in a responsible and responsive report which would deal with the real problems of regulation. As he stated, that committee worked as a non-partisan group. It logged more hours than any other committee, it was done at less cost than any other committee, and the report was brought in on time. The committee consulted with Canadians from the public and private sector right across Canada.
I think the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby will acknowledge the tremendous debt we owe to our excellent research staff, to the clerk and to others who worked with us. It was a very worth-while experience because we learned how to work on a non-partisan basis very, very quickly. I detect from the Hon. Member's voice a great sense of pride in the accomplishments of the task force on regulatory reform. His frustration arises from the fact that all of the recommendations have not been implemented or have not received serious discussion in the House. I share a great deal of his frustration. But I think he has overstated the case about tenfold. He said that very few of the recommendations have been implemented.
Let us go back to some of the specific recommendations. There were two major thrusts which we were trying to bring forward. One was that if regulators had to consult with the regulated, with the private sector, before they introduced those regulations, we would have much more responsive regulations. We would then be taking into consideration the actual fall-out of what we are doing here in the towers of Ottawa, and the fall-out it would have on ordinary business people in Canada. That was a term called "consultation". I think that the task force accomplished a great deal in terms of bringing the word "consultation" to the fore.
The Hon. Member may not recall that four years ago the word "consultation', was not very much in evidence. It has now become the buzz-word used around Ottawa before anything is done. We have two stellar examples of this: the Budgets of the
Regulatory Reform
Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). He has adopted this type of consultative process which we opted for. But what have we done as a Government in terms of making the consultation easier? We have implemented-and it was one of the major recommendations in the committee's report-the recommendations to have a regulatory agenda and to announce what regulatory measures we are contemplating. That allows for an early-warning system to the private sector. They can come forward and consult with the government. That is an openness which encourages the consultative process better than anything else. The Hon. Member talked about-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) wishes to rise on a point of order.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member accept one small question?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Yes.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: My question is this: If he wishes to use the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) as an example of what has been accomplished through the brilliant work he, I, others and a first-rate staff did on that report, may I ask him to comment upon the consultation that took place with the Budget of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton High-lands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) which came out two years after we finished our work?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I do not know where the Hon. Member gets his facts. As I recall, the Budget to which he is referring was presented to the House on November 12, 1981, and our report was tabled in the House on December 19, 1980. How he gets two years out of that, I do not know. This is the type of hyperbole we have seen in terms of the criticisms. If we are to work together constructively in this House to achieve meaningful measures, it will have to be done in an atmosphere of co-operation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 2(1), this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 22, 1984, at 11 a.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 22, 1984