1984-06-27

Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament I am accustomed to making representations on behalf of my constituents in order that they may take full advantage of government programs, especially job-creation funds.
I also appreciate receiving courteous treatment by Ministers of the Crown. I regret to say, however, that my efforts to secure funding for deserving projects under the Special Employment Initiatives Program have not been well received. In fact I have sent in many requests for various projects and have not even received a reply.
I recognize that the Minister was a busy man in his quest for the Liberal Party leadership. But I understand that matter has been taken care of and we have a new temporary Prime Minister. Would the Minister now see to it that I receive an answer to my queries? A yes or a no would be sufficient. I do not mind being refused; however, I resent being ignored. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King), has had the same type of problem. Perhaps the Minister will see to it that the dust is brushed off our files and acknowledgements are sent to us post-haste, to show his good faith.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that an opposition Member makes a statement which is complimentary to a Crown corporation such as Canada Post, but today I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my constituents and millions of descendants of the United Empire Loyalists across Canada, to pay tribute and show our appreciation to Canada Post for issuing a beautiful United Empire Loyalist stamp.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William John Vankoughnet: I should also like to express appreciation to all those responsible for their approval to launch this bicentennial stamp on July 3, 1984, in the historic Township of Adolphustown, which is on the Bay of Quinte, the site 200 years ago of the landing of Major Peter Van Alstine and his party of Loyalists. This was also the boyhood home of Canada's first Prime Minister.
It is most fitting that this commemorative stamp be issued from Adolphustown, as on July 17 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will officially open the Loyalist Parkway which runs through this, the smallest township of Ontario.
Despite its size, Adolphustown is recognized as one of the most important settlements in what was called the Midland District and is now part of eastern Ontario. The settlement of Adolphustown has played a major role in the history of Ontario as well as of Canada. Therefore, it is most fitting that this Loyalist stamp be launched from Adolphustown.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, every Canadian citizen and every permanent resident may, if he or she is residing in Canada and is at least 18 years of age, sponsor an application for landing made by one relative regardless of age or relationship to him or her, where he or she does not have a spouse, child, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece who is a Canadian citizen, who is a permanent resident, or whose application for landing he may otherwise sponsor.
The problem occurs when the Canadian resident wishes to sponsor a younger member of the family, such as a brother or sister, niece or nephew. If the Canadian resident has a parent or grandparent still living, he or she is advised that the elderly relative may be sponsored but not the latter.
This is an unreasonable condition in that elderly parents or grandparents are not always in a position to emigrate to Canada due to age, health, or attachment to familiar surroundings. This condition of the Act denies the Canadian resident the right to have a close family member join him or her in Canada, resulting in emotional stress and hardship in many cases.

June 27, 1984
I have some constituents near retirement age who are in need of companionship and emotional support from family members, and who have been good citizens, yet are denied the comfort they deserve in their later years. While the Department of Employment and Immigration is sensitive to family reunification, it is my hope that the Minister will review present legislation and make amendments to this legislation to give these Canadians compassionate consideration.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, there is an urgent need to expand door-to-door postal service to many growing communities across Canada, but Canada Post has not conducted a survey to establish qualification for door-to-door delivery since 1975. Communities in my riding, including Sooke and Ladysmith, have, according to Canada Post standards, qualified for this service since 1976. Saanich also qualifies and has not received door-to-door service.
I understand there has been a directive to cut 73 person-years from Vancouver Island and Powell River postal staff by the end of 1985. This will mean that communities which presently have service may have it reduced, and those which have qualified for almost a decade will not be given consideration. It will also increase the already high and unacceptable unemployment level. This directive must be rescinded and, in addition, a survey must be conducted so that there can be equality among the various communities in this region of British Columbia in the receipt of postal service.


FAREWELL MESSAGE BY MEMBER FOR BEAUHARNOIS-SALABERRY
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, since I have decided not to run in the event a general election is called and also because the House is adjourning for the summer at the end of this week and on Thursday I shall be travelling with the Minister of Veterans Affairs to Charlottetown, I want to take this opportunity to say goodbye to all my colleagues in the House.
Mr. Speaker, after twenty-two years in Parliament, I think my decision is certainly justified, but I want everyone to know that it is as hard to leave as it is to enter politics. One becomes very attached to the task of serving the people and to the duties of an elected representative, which include sitting in this Chamber and watching history being made every day. There
are also the friendships that develop between colleagues and transcend differences of opinion, political parties and ideologies.
Mr. Speaker, I too have developed a great fondness for Parliament and this House where, for nine years, I was one of those who sat in the Chair, and where for five of those years I was Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I personally want to thank you and your predecessors for the consideration you have always shown me.
I want to thank the entire staff of the House with whom I have had an excellent working relationship and whose services were many.
Finally, a special word of thanks to all my colleagues for the spirit of kinship we shared. I want to thank the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Leader of the NDP and their predecessors, and also the Member for Yellowhead.
The best of luck to the new Leader of the Liberal Party and future Prime Minister of Canada.
My best wishes to all, my dear friends, and until we meet again.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, politics is a partisan battle, but respected politicians exhibit grace and compassion when they win and when they lose. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) exhibited incredible grace and compassion before, during, and after the Liberal convention. The President of the Liberal Party stated that he was number one in the hearts of the delegates. However, his Cabinet colleagues continue to stab him in the heart.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) put the knife in before the convention when he abandoned the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to support John Turner. His colleagues continue to twist the knife. The Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) has questioned his loyalty and impartiality. He suggests the Minister is too emotional for the job. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) stated that the Minister of Energy has no class. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) was ready to move to Turner at the convention, but did not have to because he was so far ahead on the first ballot.
As Liberal MPs battle for internal power they signal to the country the rot into which the Liberal Party is sinking. Having conned the Minister of Energy into thinking he had a fair chance in the leadership battle, the least his colleagues in the

Liberal Party can do is to start to treat him with some dignity and decency.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Chretien:: Do you want me to cross?


INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, regarding the comments we are hearing from the opposite side of the House, I appreciate the remarks about the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien). However, when they start talking about loyalty, I would like to talk about their Leader, who, if we consider his loyalty to Mr. Claude Wagner and to the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), was the first one to start back-stabbing! I suggest Progressive Conservative Members think about that for a minute.
However, Mr. Speaker, my comments today were to be about the campaign launched at noon by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Lumley), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) under the slogan: Think about it, think Canadian. The purpose of the campaign is to promote Canadian products and urge Canadians to buy products manufactured here in Canada at competitive prices. The launching was attended by the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Retailers Association, many businessmen and people from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who said they were very pleased to be taking part in this campaign to promote Canadian products. This initiative by the Government of Canada is certainly something to be pleased about, and Canadians should be urged to think Canadian whenever purchasing products for their own use. The slogan "Think about it, think Canadian" is well suited, Mr. Speaker, to the present Government of Canada, and I am sure that Canadians will also think about it at the next election . .. and think about the Liberal Party of Canada.


TOURISM
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to address an area of concern to me which affects the tourist industry in Canada. The tourist industry is a rather seasonally based industry which is affected by many factors. To have a successful year, tourism must rely on weather conditions. Being actively involved in the tourist industry on Prince
Edward Island during the summer months, I certainly know the importance of good weather to the industry. Our particular tourist industry on Prince Edward Island relies on good summertime weather to encourage tourists to come to the area. In light of this, I would like to discuss the importance of weather forecasting to the tourist industry.
[DOT] (MIS)
There must be more emphasis placed on sunshine. I realize that weather forecasters must project the weather as it exists, but I cannot help but feel that there has always been an emphasis placed on the negative aspects of weather conditions. Emphasis should be placed on the positive aspects of the weather, such as the percentage of sunshine in a forecast.
Weather forecasters seem to deal with determining the negative factors of the weather. The probability of precipitation is determined, rather than the amount of possible sunshine for the day. For example, a broadcaster will say that there is a 10 per cent chance of rain, rather than a 90 per cent chance of sunshine. I feel that visitors to Canada would, either consciously or subconsciously, be more encouraged to travel to various locations in Canada by hearing the percentage of sunshine forecast, rather than the percentage of rain forecast. I feel very strongly that our weather forecasters should emphasize the positive rather than the negative.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Lumley) finally tabled the Government's response to the petrochemical industry task force report which was received five months ago. Five months is a long time to wait and, unfortunately, the Government has offered nothing that would give any encouragement to the industry, or to the tens of thousands of Canadians who could benefit directly through the new jobs that would be created if the recommendations of the task force were followed.
If the task force recommendations were implemented, 75,000 to 175,000 new jobs could be created by 1990. In addition, billions of investment dollars were ready to be earmarked for investment in Canada. These dollars may potentially be lost unless the Government is willing to move in a positive direction on the recommendations of the petroleum industry task force.
Neither the Government nor the Conservative Party has indicated that it is prepared to provide the positive incentives necessary to assist the petrochemical industry so that it may survive and grow in Canada. I urge the Government to reject its present shabby response to the needs of such an important
5168

June 27, 1984
Oral Questions
industry, and to reassess and support the thrust of the recommendations of the petrochemical industry task force report.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, the Quebec lieutenant who is out protecting his position, I would imagine, and in the absence of the Prime Minister, and in the absence of any Acting Prime Minister-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Over here.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am glad to see that the acting sub-lieutenant for Quebec is here. My question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. No, my question is now directed to the Minister of Finance. I have been saved by the bell.
The Minister of Finance will know that confusion compounds the lack of confidence that now exists in the Government. At Charlottetown yesterday the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey, said this about interest rates:
The rise in rates has not been sufficient to prevent a significant decline in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar to the point where it presents a new risk to our progress on inflation ... it is because of the substantial inflationary risk involved that I have never favoured depreciation where it could be avoided or at least limited.
Mr. Minister, the dollar has declined 6 per cent since March 7, the time when you said you were not staying up nights worrying about the dollar being at 81 cents U.S. You do not have to worry about that any longer.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to assure the Hon. Member that the Chair is only remotely concerned, because I am sure that the Hon. Member knows that he is addressing the Chair.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Minister apparently disagrees with the point made by the Governor of the Bank of Canada about the significant inflationary impact of the depreciation of the dollar. Does the Minister disagree with Governor Bouey's statement of yesterday? If so, which view now governs Canadian monetary policy? Nothing could be more important to the country today.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the last person who should be talking about confusion is the Hon. Member for St. John's West. Yesterday I referred to the contradiction between the stand taken by his own Leader, who has said "Let the dollar go down", and the stand taken by the Hon. Member, who has said that this was a counsel of despair and that there was no question that such a policy should not be followed. If there is any confusion it must be
within the Conservative Party. One thing I can tell the Hon. Member is that there is no confusion in the minds of the Canadian public about the position, lack of position, or contradictory positions taken by the Conservative Party on fundamental economic issues at this time.
As far as the statement of the Governor is concerned, I had an opportunity to read the speech before it was made. That speech has my full support and agreement.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would set the Hon. Minister's mind at ease on this issue of confusion. In the present situation, the only possible alternatives are to have a lower Canadian dollar or higher interest rates. We opt for a lower Canadian dollar, and not higher interest rates which will ruin economic growth in this country.


INTEREST RATE LEVELS-GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The statement which was made yesterday by Mr. Bouey, which the Minister said he approved, implies that the new risk of inflation through a lower dollar will be opposed by higher interest rates. Will the Government, which has permitted three interest rate increases in the last three months, now permit additional interest rate increases, which will lose tens of thousands of jobs for Canadians and stop the piddling recovery which is under way?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for St. John's West is correct, I must say that it will not be the first time that the poor man has had to swallow himself in the course of the last few months-between his contradictary statements and those of the Opposition Leader. I am sorry that he has lost once more in the fight with his Leader. I wish him better luck.
As far as the question of the Hon. Member is concerned, he knows very well our position in that regard. It is to have the lowest possible interest rates in this country while ensuring that the Canadian dollar is not subject to speculative devaluation.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Minister is saying that the Government will permit more interest rate increases. It is the old policy with the same old gang-Pierre Elliot Turner doesn't give a hang. That is what the Minister is saying. I thank him for that. Interest rates will be allowed to go up.


UNITED STATES DOLLAR RELATIONSHIP
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is directed to the same Minister. The Minister claimed yesterday that Canada's dollar had depreciated only against the U.S. dollar, and had appreciated against other currencies. The Governor of the Bank of Canada rejected the Minister's argument when he said: "We really
June 27, 1984

have to focus our attention on the U.S. dollar relationship". Does the Minister agree with Governor Bouey's statement that we really must focus our attention on the U.S. dollar relationship, which repudiates as nonsensical the Minister's own views?
Also, will the view of the Governor of the Bank of Canada prevail rather than the views of the Minister which were given to the press yesterday? Will the Minister tell us, after four years and three months of economic failures, of higher interest rates and a lower dollar, when the Government will call a halt and give the Canadian people a chance to make a choice as to who they want in charge of their affairs?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Hon. Member is not only does he not understand a number of issues, but he cannot read properly. The speech of Governor Bouey stressed the importance of our relationship to the U.S. dollar, indeed, because 70 per cent of our exports and imports are with that particular country.
The Hon. Member must recognize, as Governor Bouey has mentioned many times, that when talking about the relative value of the Canadian dollar we must take into account the value of the Canadian dollar not only vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar but also vis-a-vis other currencies. The situation at the present time is not that the Canadian dollar is weak vis-a-vis all other currencies. In fact all other currencies are weakening vis-a-vis an extremely strong U.S. dollar which is supported by high interest rates and which is attracting capital from around the world at the present time.
These are the facts of life which indicate that all other major currencies have known a significant decline against the U.S. dollar in the last several weeks. But, comparatively, as I mentioned yesterday, the countries which have known the smallest decline vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar have been Germany and Canada. That decline has been at the same level. All other major industrial countries have known a larger decline, including the Swiss franc, which is recognized internationally as a very strong currency, and the Japanese yen. All those currencies have declined more vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar than the decline of the Canadian dollar. My friend should know that.


John Carnell Crosbie: So what? Mr. Bouey says it does not matter.


Marc Lalonde: If he does not know that, I invite him again to read the facts and the statistics, and perhaps some day he will learn.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about the facts of life. The fact that he seems to forget is that every time interest rates go up, unemployment goes up. That is what the Minister does not understand.
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


EFFECT OF INTEREST RATES ON UNEMPLOYMENT
James Aloysius McGrath: Will the Minister of Finance tell the House what he intends to do to offset the unemployment effects of increasing interest rates? If the Minister does not act now, then he is forcing this Parliament to leave here and leave behind it 1.5 million Canadians without jobs, and without hope.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to use the Opposition's own argument, including the argument of the Hon. Member's own dear friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's West, who likes to refer very often to the United States, to indicate to my friend that the fact that we have higher interest rates at a particular time, or increasing interest rates, does not necessarily mean that we have higher unemployment taking place. Look at the United States, to use the argument of the Hon. Member for St. John's West, where it has not occurred automatically. On the contrary. The decision of investors, in particular, depends on many factors, not only on whether there is an increase in interest rates but also on whether there is going to be a demand for their products, whether they are going to have greater productivity from their workers, and whether their export capabilities are going to be favourable. The Hon. Member knows that. The best evidence of this is the latest survey carried out by Statistics Canada compared to last October.
Last October the large businesses in this country had foreseen a decline in investment in real terms by 3 per cent. In May they foresaw an increase in real terms by 2 per cent. That was a change of 5 per cent in real terms over and above inflation during that period, even though interest rates in May were higher than they were in October. Therefore there is no automatic relationship.
I do not like interest rates to go up. I regret that they have increased in the last several months. We have done and are continuing to do everything we can to keep that increase at the minimum possible level, and this is going to continue to be our policy.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that high interest rates completely stifle recovery. He knows that to be a fact.


COMPARISON WITH UNITED STATES
James Aloysius McGrath: I would like to ask the Minister, then, if high interest rates are not directly related to high unemployent, to explain this-when the Minister brought down his Budget in February he said " ... we shall create new opportunities for Canadians to find good, satisfying, permanent jobs". At that time the unemployment rate was 11.2 per cent. Now it is 11.7 per cent. Unemployment is going up in Canada and going down in the United States. Will the

June 27, 1984
Oral Questions
Minister explain that to this House and to the 1.5 million Canadians who are left out there without jobs?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I should be happy to explain this at length to the Hon. Member if he gives me a chance. I may remind him of previous statements I have made on the subject, both here in the House and elsewhere. The Hon. Member will recall the figures released by Statistics Canada each month, and he will realize that the number of jobs has increased. He is talking about rising unemployment but he has omitted to mention the increase in the number of jobs created in this country over the past year, and even within the last few months. If the Hon. Member would take the trouble to look at the facts, he would realize that the number of jobs created in recent months in this country has increased, and I am confident that their number will continue to rise in the months to come.


EFFECT OF INCREASED MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister knows, obviously, from his response to the questions just asked, that the interest rate issue is perhaps the most serious question confronting the Canadian economy. The Minister also knows, I am sure, that as a result of last week's increases in the bank rate, the five-year mortgage rate has risen to 15 per cent from 12.5 per cent in January. This puts housing out of the reach of another 100,000 Canadians. It means that a person who renews a $75,000 mortgage over five years will have to pay $8,000 more today than that same person would have had to pay in January. It means that the housing starts which were predicted at 170,000 at the beginning of the year will not reach 135,000, and we are going to have 75,000 more people out of work.
Given that the Bank of England has now stated categorically that it cannot follow the U.S. lead in interest rates and it will establish an independent policy in Britain, why is it that the Canadian Government cannot do likewise on behalf of Canadians?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to five-year rates because he prefers to choose the highest possible rate. He knows that if you want a three-year or one-year mortgage you will get a lower rate than the ones he mentioned. He must realize that there are some choices in the market for interest rates you are ready to pay and the risk you are ready to take. He also knows that in the last several days this House passed, thank God, a mortgage rate protection plan. This will ensure some protection for borrowers who want to buy a house against future increases in interest rates in years to come.
As to the specific point raised by the Hon. Member, I will study with interest the position of the Bank of England. But I must remind him that some European countries tried a similar approach a while ago and they had to reverse their position completely, 180 degrees. They ended up having to pay a very, very high cost indeed. I only have to remind him of the experience of socialist France which tried a similar approach of going it alone at a particular time. They had to pay a tremendous economic price for the policy choice they made. They had to reverse course completely a year later, and they are still paying for it.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how the Minister can evaluate an economic price and draw the conclusion that those unemployed will not have to pay a tremendous economic price for the policies of this Government, or that those people who will not be able to renew their mortgages will not have to pay a tremendous economic price as a result of the policies of the Government.
The Minister knows full well that since 1981 interest rate increases have resulted in over 500,000 jobs being lost, and 30,000 businesses, along with 80,000 individuals, going bankrupt. There are now over a million more people in poverty in Canada than there were in 1981. Given that, how can the Minister stand in his place and say that he is prepared to support Gerald Bouey's insane high interest rate policy at the expense of the lives of Canadian families?


Marc Lalonde: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is good at rhetoric, but he is not so good at analyzing the facts. I may remind him that the point is not whether we can do our own thing and ignore the rest of the world in which we live. The Hon. Member was quoting figures on unemployment in Canada. I may remind him that in France, for instance, after following a direction that differed from that followed by the rest of the industrialized world, at a given time, they finally created a situation where, unless I am mistaken, the French franc has decreased in value by about 90 per cent over the last two years. I may also remind him that the present unemployment rate in France is higher, not lower, than it was two years ago. It has gone up. So the point is not whether unemployment is too high today, or whether interest rates are too high. I realize the unemployment rate is too high. I realize that interest rates should be lower. I am doing everything I can to bring these rates down to the lowest possible level. However, I shall certainly not adopt policies that will result in more unemployment and in devaluating our currency, which happened in a number of European countries as a result of pursuing policies that appeared to be expedient in the short term but soon proved disastrous. I shall certainly not take the lead of the New Democratic Party in this instance.
June 27, 1984


POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF REDUCING INTEREST RATES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the hardship inflicted upon average Canadians who cannot find employment, pay their mortgages, and who will be faced with poverty from now until the day they die, the Minister is saying he will do nothing. Is it not reasonable to assume that if we strengthen the Canadian economy by lowering interest rates and making it possible for people to buy in Canada those things they need, by following that course of action independent of the United States, we will be able to stimulate Canada's economy, make it possible for people to go back to work, and in that way strengthen the Canadian dollar?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the Hon. Member must have missed some translation. I spent a few minutes explaining to him that my position and that of the Government is to avoid creating more hardship for the Canadian people by following short-sighted policies which are going to boomerang on the Canadian economy and the Canadian people. I told him what happened to some European countries which tried this trick. They thought they could do it by resorting to that kind of magic short-term expediency, and they ended up in more serious trouble than they were in before. We are not going to follow that kind of snake-oil remedy the NDP is recommending, thank you very much.


CANADA SPORTS POOL CORPORATION
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board I will put my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Will he give this House an absolutely firm and iron-clad guarantee today that no further funds will be advanced to the Sports Pool until the House of Commons has had, at the very least, a full, complete and proper accounting of every penny spent to date?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the statute passed by this Parliament provides for the possibility of an advance of funds to the Sports Pool. That is provided under the authority of Parliament, and the decision as to whether funds should be advanced and how much, will be made by the Government. The Government will assume its responsibilities in that regard.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY ACCOUNTING
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is emerging as one of the four horsemen of the new Liberal apostasy. Since we now know that only the Liberals could open a casino and lose their shirts, my question is very simple. Every $ 10 million advanced to this corporation, money which will be lost, represents lost job potential for young
Oral Questions
people in the order of 3,000 to 4,000 jobs. Given what is known about the contracts, the Minister's own people and staff who have been hired, the situation regarding the advertising contracts, and the impossibility of this operation making a penny, will the Minister tell the House why the House of Commons should be prevented from getting a proper accounting of everything done to date before that Minister, on behalf of the people of Canada, puts more money into the Sports Pool, to be lost?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have difficulty understanding why the Member keeps on trying to make a fool of himself with allegations like the ones he is making. The authority given by this Parliament is clear. The Hon. Member knows that when you start a lottery it takes time to build up a clientele and profits.


Mr. Nielsen:: It is not supposed to be a lottery.


Marc Lalonde: This has been the case with all games like this, whether it was the Olympic lottery or the provincial lotteries. We are facing difficulties, and competition, and restrictions which the provincial lotteries have imposed. The Hon. Member is aware of that. We are going to make sure that we are going to have the funds available to make this project a success.


INDUSTRY
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion my question is addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the fact that imports of manufactured goods in Canada represented approximately $64 billion in 1983, can the Parliamentary Secretary say what level of import substitution, particularly in manufactured goods, he expects to be achieved by the domestic marketing program launched today, and how soon he expects the program to be reflected in new jobs?


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult to comment in terms of the figure of $64 billion mentioned by the Hon. Member. However, I can assure the House that if Canadians could increase their purchases of Canadian made products by 1 percent, this would mean thousands and thousands of jobs for Canadians.

June 27, 1984
Oral Questions


CANADIAN UNITY INFORMATION OFFICE
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I think he is temporarily out of his seat.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is temporarily out to lunch.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by the Minister of Supply and Services that $97,680 was paid to Contrefort Incorporated on behalf of the Canadian Unity Information Office for an opinion poll taken last year of young people in Quebec to determine their political attitude to the Liberal Party and its leaders. Will the Minister, who reports for the Canadian Unity Information Office, tell the House if he approves of this use of public funds and how such an expenditure is justified?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, given the information that the Hon. Member was supplied with in error by my colleague-


Some Hon. Members:: In error!


Mark R. MacGuigan: -I would hardly have expected him to do other than to ask a question about it in the House. In fact there has been no such survey made as mentioned by the Hon. Member, and which he quoted from my colleague's letter. In fact the contract which that Company, Contrefort Incorporated, has with the Government through CUIO is not for surveys at all. It is for analysis. They produce a document called Dossier Quebec. To show the hon. gentleman that their work is open and above board, as indeed everything in the Government is, although this is not normally reviewed I will undertake to make a copy of this available to the hon. gentleman so that he can verify it for himself.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister very much for this very revealing information. I can understand his difficulty in working with the Minister of Supply and Services, who appears to be relatively inefficient.


REQUEST THAT ANALYSIS CONTENTS BE MADE PUBLIC
J. Robert Howie: As the Minister has indicated, will he release the contents of the analysis so the information can be examined and evaluated by all Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents who have paid for an analysis which appears to be extremely partisan?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, on the assumption that what I would make available to my hon. friend would become public anyway, I will be glad to make it public.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. This month another batch of students are out on the streets looking for jobs that do not exist. Many of them will be living off their families, or lining up at food banks. What does the Minister intend to do about this intolerable situation? Does he accept the statements of the Minister of State for Youth that over 800,000 young Canadians are unemployed now and that this situation will remain? What is he going to do about this? Is this the Liberal election platform for youth?


Hon. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, last week when we released our report, Focus on Youth, we realized that there was indeed unemployment at the rate of 18.5 per cent and that this does not include those who are not looking for jobs and would need to be trained. In the last Budget of the Minister of Finance, $150 million was set aside, and $30 million is now going to be devoted to a youth training option which I feel is certainly a beginning to finding a solution for those people who are unskilled and have a hard time finding a job.


MANITOBA GOVERNMENT'S INITIATIVE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns economic policy. By adopting a "jobs first" policy the NDP Government in Manitoba has reduced youth unemployment from 21 per cent to 10 per cent in one year, while the unemployment rate has gone up in other provinces, as the Minister knows. Why does the federal Government not adopt a similar kind of economic policy and put jobs first as a national priority? Why is this happening only in Manitoba? Why should it not be for young people right across Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that last gasp by the NDP. I welcome initiatives being taken by provincial Governments across the country. There have been a number of provincial Governments which have taken some initiatives. Some have taken more than others. It shows that when federal government and provincial government programs get together and go in the same direction, they produce good results. I remind my hon. friend that in Manitoba, as in other provinces, federal Government programs are at work and are quite effective. As I said, we have allocated more money than ever in our history for the support of young people in need of jobs or training. It runs into billions of dollars.
When provincial Governments agree to do their share in addition, and to contribute to this effort, it will obviously have better results. I would hope that Conservative Governments in the other provinces will take a leaf from Manitoba's book and help the federal Government reduce unemployment all across the country. The Hon. Member knows that the Government
June 27, 1984

Oral Questions
has put economic recovery and growth and job creation at the [English]
top of its priorities.	Mr. McKenzie: I want to point out to the Minister that
nothing was checked, investigated or answered by Mr. Warren
in committee.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Ad Varma, an employee rated by Canada Post Corporation as outstanding in his ability, quality of work and output, has been fired by Michael Warren for consulting with Members of Parliament in regard to waste and mismanagement within the Corporation. This employee has been assessed as carrying out his assigned projects with the highest degree of industrial engineering, expertise, enthusiasm and skill, which clearly indicates that he is fully qualified to make comments and recommendations.
As employees should be encouraged and rewarded for coming forward with information, will the Minister take immediate steps to have Mr. Varma reinstated, and take the necessary steps to provide an appropriate committee with an order of reference to conduct a full and complete investigation into the problems-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has concern about a very specific case. Such a question should be on the Order Paper. However, if the Minister wants to comment, he may.


An Hon. Member:: It was on the front page of The Star.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are trying to follow certain procedures. I have been given a very long list of names from the Official Opposition today. There is no way I can possibly do justice to it. However, if the Hon. Member will quickly get to his point it will help.


A. Daniel McKenzie: We usually do not put questions on the Order Paper about someone being fired, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Minister have a proper committee set up so that we can hear witnesses under oath, including Mr. Varma and Mr. Warren, to study the problems within Canada Post?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Canada Post Corporation, Mr. Warren, has already responded to all the allegations made by Mr. Varma before a Parliamentary Committee. I do not see how it could be useful to refer the matter to another Parliamentary Committee. Mr. Varma has not raised any new points and the information he released has been checked and proved to be unfounded, on most counts.


UNION POSITION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. A. M.
Davies, the former special representative of the Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer of Canada Post Corporation, stated in November, 1983, that he supports everything that Mr. Varma says and is just as concerned as Mr. Varma, and the line supervisors confirm what Mr. Varma says. He also stated-


Mr. Speaker:: I am trying to be fair with the Hon. Member. He is raising a very specific case. I have indicated certain guidelines with regard to supplementary questions. If the Hon. Member insists on a long quotation on a supplementary, could he not just ask his supplementary?


A. Daniel McKenzie: The union is in a position to strip Michael Warren of his credibility. What will the Minister do about this problem of the union stripping Mr. Warren of his credibility? Will he please reconsider appointing a committee and have all the witnesses called in under oath to examine the charges made by Mr. Varma and other employees of Canada Post?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member's conclusions are rather strange. He started by trying to defend the position of one specific employee, and he then proceeded with considerations of a general nature, namely that the entire union is involved in this conflict with Mr. Warren. I have the impression that it is a personal matter between Mr. Varma and the Hon. Member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It pertains to the proposed amendment to the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, which would include tobacco. I do not have to relate the importance of this issue to the Minister; he is well aware of it. He is also well aware of the commitments that have been made in the past and of the many rumours that are presently passing around. Is the Minister prepared to tell us when the proposed amendment will be introduced in the House?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I hope tomorrow.

June 27, 1984
Oral Questions


T.A. Bud Bradley: I thank the Minister for that, finally. We have been waiting since December. I am sure that we have heard promises of this type before, and the word "hope" bothers me.


PASSAGE OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister tell us if this Bill has been approved and printed? Is it in the hands of the Government House Leader and has he been asked, or is he willing to negotiate with our House Leader? Is it his intention that this amendment be passed before the week is out?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member sounds as if the whole House is in full agreement. If he can come to me and say: "We are in full agreement and we will give immediate passage to this Bill", I can go to the House Leader and say that the opposition Parties are in full agreement with this Bill. The Bill is being printed-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: What Bill?


Eugene Whelan: The Bill is being printed at the present time. It was only approved yesterday, and the Bill should be in the hands of the House Leader later today.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I would like to ask the Minister if, following a recent court judgment, he intends to be particularly careful about dangerous criminals who, as a result, may be put back into "circulation" in greater numbers. Second, regarding individuals who are released under mandatory supervision and commit offences or escape, does the Minister intend to take any special action in this respect? I should like to know whether Bill C-35 deals more specifically with this question and whether the Minister will want the Bill to be passed before the end of this session?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, we only have two days to go. This is a very important piece of legislation which would permit us to keep violent offenders longer behind bars.
I have written to both my opposition critics. The Conservative Party indicated that they support the legislation and that their critic would be prepared to give it three-stage passage this week. Unfortunately the NDP have taken the position that the Bill is too tough on violent offenders, and they are seeking amendments to this legislation that would reduce its effectiveness so as to make it practically useless. That is where we stand.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to my friend, the Minister of Agriculture. He is no doubt aware of the very serious flooding problem in northeast Saskatchewan. I had a chance to see some of it on the weekend. The northwestern part of Manitoba is affected as well.
In my province the provincial Government is putting up a paltry $8 million to help the farmers, which is about $10 an acre. Has the Saskatchewan Government made an official request for federal government aid in terms of the designation of that area as a disaster area? Will the Minister also tell us whether there will be any federal assistance for the hard pressed people of northeastern Saskatchewan?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I received a telegram yesterday or the day before from the Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan, pointing out the need of farmers. However, what is needed is an official declaration by the Premier of the province to the Prime Minister of Canada, calling it a disaster area. As of yesterday I have not seen that.
If they go through that formula and it then goes to the President of the Privy Council, the House Leader, under the national disaster plan, I would think that that is the procedure they should be following. I had not seen that as of yesterday.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am rather surprised that the provincial Government has not done this, because it really is an emergency.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The facts are wrong. They have had it since March 16. You are not telling the truth.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF ASSISTANCE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, despite the laxness of the provincial Government, can the Minister assure the people in northeast Saskatchewan that there will be some federal assistance, and can he assure the people in that part of the province that that aid will be coming very quickly, because they need that assistance right away?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if they have declared it a disaster-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You have had it since March 16. You are not telling the truth.
June 27, 1984


Eugene Whelan: I saw the telegram from the Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan that I have in my office, asking for assistance.


Mr. McKnight:: What about March 16?


Eugene Whelan: In the press they called it a disaster area, but I have not seen any official declaration sent to us that it is a disaster area. That is all that I am saying. I have not seen it. If it is there as of yesterday, I have not seen it. Any declaration that is made by any province is considered. I do not know of any declaration of a disaster area that is too big for a province to look after, that the federal Government has refused.


PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM GRANTS FOR EXPLORATION IN ARCTIC
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I am sure that he is aware that the funds for PIP grants for exploration in the Arctic are mainly derived from Canadian consumers of petroleum products through the PGRT paid at the gas pumps. He must also be aware that much of the equipment being used in that exploration activity is bought, hired or contracted offshore, as his brochure shows very clearly.
Would the Minister tell us why Canadian generated funds should be used to subsidize offshore drilling equipment and offshore shipbuilding, when there is a Canadian product and Canadian shipbuilding on shore which those Canadian funds could be used to help?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the PIP grants are a subsidy that we gave to the companies for drilling on Canada Lands in the North and in the Maritimes. Each contractor who drills is trying to get equipment at the cheapest cost possible so that the PIP grants will not be overspent. There is no law that forces anybody to use only Canadian equipment.
A lot of Canadian equipment has been used in the North or the offshore, and some other equipment was leased out there because there are a lot of rigs available at a cheaper cost in the world market at this time due to the surplus of rigs. The contractors, or companies, are trying to drill at the lowest cost possible so that the taxpayers will not pay too much money for the grants.


AVAILABILITY OF MOBILE ARCTIC DRILLING PLATFORM
Donald W. Munro: The Minister must know and, if he does not, his colleague will tell him, that the Mobile Arctic Island Drilling Platform is available. It is a Canadian product and a Canadian innovation which employs Canadians.
Oral Questions
We have been urged to buy Canadian. Why is the Minister awarding PIP grants to companies that do not buy Canadian? Why does he not put it into law?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if it is Canadian built I think it would be easy for them to be competitive in getting contracts. There is no law that forbids Canadians or drilling companies to get their equipment abroad. There are some Canadian rigs operating in the North Sea. This is a worth-while situation, and they all compete to get the work.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In 1976 there was a commitment made through the Domestic Feed Grain Policy of Agriculture Canada that feed freight assistance to the Atlantic provinces and eastern Quebec would continue unless a high degree of self-sufficiency was achieved. Assistance has been substantially reduced, and Maritime farmers are now less sufficient than they were in 1976. In light of the eroding position of Maritime livestock and poultry producers vis-a-vis other parts of the country, what steps is the Minister planning to take to stop this erosion and put our maritime producers in an equitable position with producers in other parts of the country?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the President of the Maritime Farmers Association was in Ottawa last week. He had meetings with agriculture officials and with the Canadian Livestock Feed Board officials. They are trying to put together certain recommendations that will amount to an expenditure of somewhere between $2 million and $5 million. I do not know whether that will be satisfactory to them, but it should offset some of the inequity that exists in that plan at the present time.


PROPOSAL ADVANCED BY MARITIME FARMERS' COUNCIL
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure the Hon. Minister is aware that, unless steps are taken, our livestock and poultry producers will not be able to survive. Will the Minister give favourable consideration to the Maritime Farmers' Council proposal which, among other things, asks that a system be implemented to make payment of feed freight assistance benefits to producers so that they will have a positive effect on local feed grain and forage production marketing in the Maritime area? This would be in addition to the cash the Minister has indicated would be made available.

June 27, 1984
Tabling of Documents


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, all other proposals are being considered both by my Department, Agriculture Canada officials, and by the Canadian Livestock Feed Board. The recommendations have not all come together yet, but I would hope they will in the next day or so.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, June 26, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, with all the amendments made during these very busy months.
Therefore, I have the honour to table that report in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


AGRICULTURE
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in both official languages copies of a document entitled Reports on Residues Monitoring Programs for the fiscal year 1983-84.


PETITIONS
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasant responsibility and duty today to table two petitions signed by the citizens of St. Thomas in The Constituency of Elgin.
The first petition reflects the opinions of my constituents regarding the increase in violent crime that we are presently encountering and also the very light sentences that are being handed out, in particular to repeat offenders. I sincerely hope that the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) will give serious consideration to the opinions of my constituents.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is signed by the citizens of St. Thomas in the Constituency of Elgin. This petition, like the first one, reflects the opinions of my constituents regarding the harmful effects of pornography on our society. Again, I sincerely hope that the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) will give serious consideration to my constituents' wishes by restricting the distribution of pornographic materials to society.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Morrison Ward, Town of Gravenhurst, in the Province of Ontario, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that at mileage 102.98 of the Newmarket Subdivision of the Canada National Railway, intersecting the Sparrow Lake Road "C", two persons have been killed by trains while crossing the tracks in motorized vehicles and that motorists believe that visibility of approaching CNR trains is made difficult by the topographical nature of the crossing.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation for the installation of railway crossing lights at the aforementioned intersection. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and pleasure to present a petition signed by a number of my constituents in the Village of Fenelon Falls in the Township of Fenelon. They all have property adjoining the now abandoned Canadian National track bed from Lindsay to Haliburton. They hereby formally attest to their objection to the track bed abutting their respective properties being used for public bike recreational trails. They ask that they be allowed input into the use of this land before it is disposed of.
June 27, 1984


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition by 693 undersigned residents of the constituency of Parkdale-High Park and other parts of Ontario who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy. The undersigned citizens strongly support the hunger strike staged by three Polish Canadians, and urge the Canadian Government to help the spouses and children of the strikers to join them in Canada. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Ontario who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy humbly sheweth that qualified Quebec pipeline welders have been working throughout the rest of Canada while the actions of the Government of the Province of Quebec are impeding the ability of non-Quebec resident welders to obtain work in that province.
Wherefore we humbly ask for your assistance in seeking redress for these grievances which violate our rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from some 1,500 residents of the City of Toronto who petition this Parliament to recognize that Canadians recognize family reunion as an integral part of Canadian immigration policy, that sons and daughters over 21 years of age are not recognized as part of the family for purposes of immigration, and that for many Canadian immigrant families unmarried sons and daughters do not cease to be part of their families simply because they attain the age of 21, resulting in the fact that many Canadian immigrant families are denied reunion and are suffering hardship.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to direct the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) to amend the present immigration regulation so that a sole remaining unmarried son or daughter of a Canadian resident shall be admissible on the same basis as minor children. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Order Paper Questions



BANK ACT


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-254, an Act to amend the Bank 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.


Dennis Dawson: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill to amend the Bank Act with a view to protecting people who stand surety by co-signing a loan or extending a line of credit. It is self-explanatory.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[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.



INDIAN SELF-GOVERNMENT ACT

[Stage Direction]
MEASURE TO ESTABLISH On the Order: Introduction of Bills:
June 22, 1984-The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development- Bill intituled: "An Act relating to self-government for Indian Nations".
['Mr. Speaker, I now understand there is a disposition to do it at the time it arrives, for which I thank House Leaders of the Opposition Parties.']
Mr. Speaker:: I am obliged to call to the attention of the Minister that we have not yet received the royal recommendation. When it has been received, the Minister will be able to proceed with this Bill. Possibly it can be cleared up shortly.



[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. 681, 730, 818 and 870.

June 27, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): 1.	(a) Which agency or agencies or person or persons, and working in what city or cities, conceived and designed the logo and corporate signature of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (b) what amount and on what date was each agency paid for these and any related services?
2.	What means were employed by the Corporation to protect its logo and corporate signature from use by others either within, or external to, Canada?
3.	Is the Corporation represented by any subsidiaries, agents or offices in other countries and, if so, in which other countries and by what other subsidiaries, agents or offices?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	(a) Burton Kramer Associates Ltd., Graphic Design Consultants, 206 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
(b) The contract signed on June 27, 1973 with Burton Kramer Associates Limited called for the payment of $50,000 for the research, design and development of a symbol. The contract also called for assessment and application phases, the fees for which were to be based upon standard design office rates.
No accurate statement of the amounts paid under these later phases can now be provided since the accounts payable records for these related services, dated nine and ten years ago, are no longer in existence. The requirements of the relevant federal legislation which sets out the period of retention of such records, have been met.
2.	The Corporation's Trade Mark "C's Design" was registered under the Trade Marks Act on February 28, 1975.
3.	The CBC has its own foreign offices in London, England, in Paris, France, in Washington and New York, U.S.A., and has correspondents in Moscow, U.S.S.R., and in Peking, China. In addition, the Corporation is represented by the following agencies and distributors:
-Canadian Standard Broadcast Sales, New York City, U.S.A.;
-D. L. Taffner Ltd., New York City, U.S.A.;
-Tohokushinsha Film Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan;
-Representaciones de Television Ltda., Santiago, Chile;
-McCann International Programme Marketing Ltd., Bickley, England;
-Western World Television, Beverley Hills, U.S.A.;
-Premier Performance Corporation, New York City, U.S.A.; -Viacom Enterprises, New York City, U.S.A.;
-EXCEL, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;
-Jaguar Distribution Corp., New York City, U.S.A.;
-D. L. Taffner Ltd., Chatswood, Australia;
-American Journal of Nursing Co., New York City, U.S.A.; -Films Incorporated, Wilmette, U.S.A.;
-Filmakers Library Inc., New York City, U.S.A.;
-International Film Exchange, New York City, U.S.A.;
-Journal Films Inc., Evanston, U.S.A.;
-Pyramid Film & Video, Santa Monica, U.S.A.;
-Time-Life Video, New York, U.S.A.;
-Wombat Productions Inc., Ossining, U.S.A.;
-Pegasus Films, Clwyd, North Wales, U.K.;
-Educational Film Services Limited, Hong Kong;
-Educational Media Limited, Melbourne, Australia;
-Encyclopaedia Britannica (S.A.) (Pty) Limited, Johannesburg, South Africa;
-Filmo Singapore (Pty) Ltd., Singapore.


Mr. Nickerson: 1.	On March 8, 1984 did NorthwesTel Inc., the Crown corporation which provides telephone services in northwestern Canada, file, with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, an application for rate changes including the following increases (a) exchange services, rotary service,
37.5	per cent (b) PBX, Key Telephone Systems, Auxiliary Equipment and Misc. Services (i) PBX, 10 per cent (ii) Key Telephone, 10 per cent (iii) Charge for non-published number, 6 per cent (iv) Zenith Service, 40 per cent (v) Additional directory listing, 10 per cent (vi) Centrex service, 5 per cent (c) Locality Rate Areas, Locality Rate surcharge, 6 per cent (d) Mileage Charges (i) Individual services outside of Base Rate Area, 10 per cent (ii) Off-premises extension, 40 per cent (e) Local Coin Service, 150 per cent (0 Message Toll Service (i) Rates within operating and adjacent areas 6.4 per cent (ii) Time and Charge service
78.6	per cent (g) Private Wire Service (i) Teletype circuit rentals, 10 per cent (ii) Equipment rentals, 10 per cent (iii) Local loops, 75 per cent (iv) Installation charges, 10 per cent (h) Telex Service, Equipment rental rates, up to 10 per cent (i) Broadband Service (i) Equipment rental rates, 40 per cent (ii) Toll charges, 50 per cent (iii) Service Charges, 100 per cent and, if so, did the Minister of Finance in his budget speech on February 15, 1984 state, "The existing policy of limiting price increases for goods and services sold by the federal Government, Crown corporations and federally regulated industries will be extended a third year. The price guidelines will be reduced from 5 per cent to 4 per cent for this period."?
2.	Will the Government require NorthwesTel Inc. to comply with the price guidelines laid down by the Minister of Finance?


Francis Fox: 1. Yes, an application was filed by NorthwesTel Inc. on March 8, 1984. The rate increases requested are as stated in the question, with the following exceptions:
(b) (iii) PBX, charge for unlisted number, increase 5.8 per cent instead of 6 per cent.
(g)	(iv) Private wire installation charges, average increase 11.26 per cent (under restructuring of tariff) instead of 10 per cent.
(h)	Telex service, equipment rental rates up to 7 per cent instead of 10 per cent.
Yes, the Minister of Finance did make a statement on this subject in his budget speech on February 15, 1984.
2. When the CRTC decision regarding this application is issued, it will be reviewed within the context of the government's policy of limiting price increases for goods and services sold by the federal Government, Crown corporations, and federally regulated industries.
June 27, 1984


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works contract for the laying of carpeting in the hallways of the West Block and, if so (a) for what reason (b) on whose authority (c) at what cost?
2.	Was the contract put out to tender and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so (i) when and how was the invitation to tender advertised (ii) what were the names of the successful and unsuccessful bidding firms (iii) what price did each bid quote?
3.	Does the Department plan to contract for the carpeting of the hallways of any other buildings in the parliamentary precinct?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: 1. (a)
Public Works Canada contracted for the laying of carpet in the third and fourth floor hallways of the West Block at the request of the House of Commons administration. This installation was rendered as a tenant service paid from House of Commons funds, (b) Director of Logistics, House of Commons. (c) $22,100.
2.	Invited tenders were called in accordance with the Government contracts regulations, (a) Not applicable, (b) (i) Contractors were invited to bid with names being taken from the Regional Contractors Index, (ii) and (iii) Carpet Fair Ltd., $22,100. (awarded contract); Armenia Rug, $22,881.73.
3.	The House of Commons administration intends in the future to proceed with the installation of carpet on the second floor corridor and on the east corridor of the first floor of the West Block.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Are any exempt staff employed by the Ministry of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and, if so, what are their (a) titles (b) positions (c) names (d) initial date of employment as exempt staff?
2.	Do any of the staff mentioned in part 1 receive income, financial assistance or other benefits related to their employment from sources other than the ministerial budget and, if so (a) which members (b) what are the details of the income, financial assistance or other benefits?


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: 1. The Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) currently employs eight exempt staff:
(a) and (b)	(c)	(d)Executive Assistant	G. Wilson	19/09/83Research Assistant	R. Weston	07/05/84Special Assistant	H. Flanagan	15/08/83Special Assistant	C. Gleeson	05/12/83Special Assistant	P. Legris	02/04/84Special Assistant	D. Pfahl	02/04/84Special Assistant	P. Robson	15/08/83Special Assistant	J. Innes	29/08/832. No.	[English]


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.
Order Paper Questions


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 744 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 744 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Crombie: In (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 (d) 1978 (e) 1979 (f) 1980 (g) 1981 (h) 1982 (i) 1983 were any film production companies awarded grants or loans under the Canada Film Development Corporation Program and, if so, in each case, what was the (i) name of the company (ii) amount of the grant, loan or subsidy?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the admonition of the Parliamentary Secretary in recent months in this Chamber with respect to the Government's attitude regarding starred questions, I rise once again and ask him why people living in the Maritimes, shipyards and entrepreneurs in the shipping community, cannot obtain an answer to question No. 699 which was placed on the Order Paper on February 22, 1984, some four or five months ago.
It simply asks for the number of ships, drilling rigs and other platforms described as vessels imported into Canada. It asks how many there have been, how much revenue has been collected and how much it has cost to police. It concerns questions which have been raised consistently in the House with respect to PIP grants and other legislation.
When will we get an answer to this question? Will the Government not concede and simply acknowledge that the practice in this Chamber for over 100 years now has been to respond expeditiously and swiftly to starred questions? Otherwise, there is very little point in having starred questions. The answers to written questions are printed. It is either a useful practice or it is not. The Parliamentary Secretary has consistently said that there is nothing about this in our Standing Orders; but my point of order is as much to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the precedent in the Chamber upon which we rely so frequently for the proper discharge of our duties. Would the Parliamentary Secretary simply indicate whether or not he has any intention of responding to that question during this Parliament?

June 27, 1984
Introduction of Bills


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, we will try to obtain an answer to that question as soon as possible. As the Hon. Member indicated in elaborating on his point of order, it is a complex question. The Government is moving as fast as it can to obtain an answer for the Hon. Member.
With regard to starred questions, that issue has been raised time and time again. I can only say that the Government tries to act expeditiously on all questions, not just starred questions.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, seeing that the Parliamentary Secretary is in such a good mood, would he be willing to advise me, in terms of the dozen or so times he has told me that he would inquire of the Department of National Defence about question No. 840, what kind of response he obtained? Is it that they are too incompetent to fulfil the requirements of the question? Is there some security reason, or is it simply that the Minister of National Defence has been misleading the country for years?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Hon. Member, we are trying to obtain an answer to that question for him. I know exactly what the question is and what information he is trying to obtain.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Introduction of Bills:
June 22, 1984-The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development- Bill intituled: "An Act relating to self-government for Indian Nations".
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, through an error the royal proclamation was sent by air to the Supreme Court rather than here. It is on its way. In view of that, would it be possible-and I understand unanimous consent might be forthcoming-to revert to Introduction of Bills to have the Bill relating to self-government for Indian nations
introduced? I understand that it will be in Your Honour's hands momentarily.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is nothing we can do about it now.


Mr. Speaker:: We do not have the royal recommendation. I believe the House might be disposed, as soon as it is received, to interrupt proceedings and perhaps give consent to the introduction of the Bill. In the circumstances the Chair's hands are tied.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I now understand there is a disposition to do it at the time it arrives, for which I thank House Leaders of the Opposition Parties.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Financial Administration Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker:: As Hon. Members are aware, there are five motions standing on the Notice Paper at report stage of Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Financial Administration Act.
I have examined these motions and have concluded that Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), should be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), should be grouped for debate and voted as follows: (a) a vote on Motion No. 2 will also dispose of Motion No. 3; (b) Motion No. 4 will be voted on by itself; and (c) Motion No. 5 should be debated and voted on separately. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I am putting the first motion for debate at this stage.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill) moved:: That Bill C-34 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 16 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"pleted three months of continuous service".
He said: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members are aware, the motion before the House would have the effect of saying that women or men who have three months of continuous employment with the same employer would be eligible for the maternity leave and child care provisions as set out in the Act. This would mean that women and their husbands could choose after three months whether or not they wished to take maternity
June 27, 1984

leave or child care leave. It would affect those women who come under the protection of the Canada Labour Code.
My motion, in effect, is the proposition which was introduced to the Minister when he tabled the Bill in the House in May. What has happened over the last week is that, in collusion with the Conservative Party, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) backed down in committee from the promise he made to women across the country, to people who wanted the child care provisions to apply after three months. By moving to a six-month qualifying period many women, many parents throughout this land, will not qualify for the leave.
I will give an example of how this would operate. In committee we had representations from the Canadian Construction Association. They did not want the present law, which provides for maternity leave after 12 months' continuous employment, changed. In my questioning of the representatives of the Canadian Construction Association, they admitted that most of their tradespeople only had three or four months' employment with any one employer. What the provision which the Liberals and Conservatives agreed to in committee will do is this: Women who work in the construction trades will not qualify for maternity leave and neither parent will qualify for the child care provisions. In my amendment I am trying to re-establish what the Minister promised to women and parents across this land when he tabled this Bill. I am trying to undo the harm of the Liberal-Conservative coalition in committee which prevents many women and parents qualifying for this leave.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly to this amendment. We spent a week in committee where we heard many witnesses. The first witness we heard was the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet). He assured us that the Bill represented his best judgment as to a compromise between the interests of labour and the interests of employers. At that point I asked whose responsibility it was to protect the interests of society. It is all right to have vested interest groups. I believe it is fair to say that labour is a vested interest group and that employers are a vested interest group. Surely it is the purpose and the place of the House of Commons of Canada and the parliamentarians who serve in this House on behalf of all the people in Canada to have the responsibility and the function of protecting the public good.
As the week unfolded, it became clear that the Bill was not a true compromise between the two vested interest groups. In fact, the Bill as presented to us was clearly a Bill which favoured the vested interests of organized labour. Parts of the Bill favour employees, wherever we find them, but large parts of the Bill dealt with conditions of work that are normally part of the collective bargaining process.
What the Minister of Labour was attempting to do was to take those and, through the legislative process, remove the possibility of collective bargaining. That is something we expect the New Democratic Party to support. I am sure they would support an amendment that said zero months, that there
Canada Labour Code
be absolutely no qualifying period; that for employees under the union banner, those that are captive of the union movement, there would be no qualifying period required. The individual employer would be responsible for the costs associated with it.
The only Party that faithfully attended all the hearings and attempted to serve the public well was the Conservative Party of Canada. We truly tried to find the best kind of labour legislation. You can have a piece of legislation dealing with the necessity for some period of continuous employment to be served before an employee acquires a right, in this case the right to 41 weeks of leave. There is one set of conditions which prevails when society pays the cost of that leave. There is a different set of conditions which prevails when the individual employer must pay the cost of that leave. That is one of the flaws in this piece of legislation, that the Government, the Liberal Party of Canada, in conjunction with the NDP, refused to change the Bill to remove the obligation of an individual employer to provide certain benefits that cost money.
Many witnesses before us testified that when you are going to cause individual employers to pay that money-


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Hon. Member would let me have a moment or two. With the indulgence of the Hon. Member, because of the time frame, I wonder if the Hon. Member would permit me to present a motion. There has already been unanimous consent indicated that we revert to motions so that we can have the introduction of the Bill providing for Indian self-government.


Mr. Siddon:: Can you wait five minutes?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member might be agreeable to doing it now inasmuch as a press conference has been staged with respect to the Bill of which the Opposition Parties are aware and are going to participate. Inasmuch as there is unanimous consent to do so, 1 wonder if the Hon. Member would mind. It will only take a minute.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I was out of the Chamber when the Minister rose. I gather that he now has the royal recommendation.


John Carr Munro: Quite so.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Accordingly we are prepared to allow the Minister to proceed with the introduction of the Bill now that this deficiency in the procedure has been corrected.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate that the NDP is very happy to give its agreement to the introduction of this Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 27, 1984
Canada Labour Code



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Carr Munro: for leave to introduce Bill C-52 an Act relating to self-government for Indian Nations.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now revert to debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Financial Administration Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, and Motion No. 1 (Mr. Murphy).
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to do that for the House. I am pleased that occasionally we do something unanimously.
The principle to which I was addressing myself was the principle of who pays. The Minister has brought forward a Bill which states that an employer will hire someone who subsequently becomes pregnant. That someone, or the spouse of that someone, is entitled to 41 weeks of leave and the employer is responsible for the benefit costs during that period.
If we are going to require in the laws of Canada that an individual employer pay the benefit costs for someone for a period approaching 41 weeks, the least we can expect is that that person provide some period of continuous service before being entitled to that leave. It was 12 months, 52 weeks. The Government proposed that it be cut to three months or approximately 13 weeks. The committee in its wisdom came to somewhere in between and moved it to a period of 26 or 27 weeks, in effect six months.
I suggest that probably we are still wrong in principle to require the individual employer to carry the cost of that leave. If that period of leave for child care is something that our society values, then I suggest that society in total, through general revenues, some kind of insurance or some other scheme, should pay the direct costs associated with that period of leave. However, the Government was unwilling to so provide.
The Government has supposedly had a change in leadership and a change in direction. It is still a government that is loading a specific cost on to a specific employer that is totally out of the control of that employer. That cost is in the hands of those who seek the leave and if such leave is deemed to be of benefit to society, then it is a cost which should be paid for by society rather than by the individual employer.
Surely, given the fact that the Government insists that the individual employer be responsible for that cost, it is at least reasonable for any employee who is to benefit from that provision to provide the employer with a period of continuous service that is longer than the normal probationary period which attaches to many forms of employment. That is why the committee was virtually unanimous in its decision to amend that provision of the Bill from three months to six months. I would encourage the House to accept the six-month provision. It is not a great provision, it is not a perfect provision, but given the individual responsibility, it is certainly better than the three-month provision.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak very briefly to the amendment to Clause 6, where it refers to Section 59.2 of the Canada Labour Code, proposed by the New Democratic Party. Originally, the Canada Labour Code, as the previous speaker just said, prescribed a period of twelve months, and when Bill C-34 was introduced, this was reduced to three months, more or less as proposed in the amendment by the New Democratic Party.
Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the groups that testified before the Committee of Labour, Manpower and Immigration, especially those representing management and obviously those representing workers who are all very much in favour of the Bill. In all fairness to the employers, we cannot really say that they are against the Bill but they did use a term, and this term was used by Mr. Masters who is President of or represents a group called Fetco . . . employees who fall under federal jurisdiction and work for a Crown Corporation. He said quite simply to bring in a balanced bill. So, regarding the existing period of twelve months and the three-month period proposed in the Bill, we felt in Committee and also in the Government that to balance the situation and strike a bargain that would be fair to both workers and employers, a period of six months would be entirely reasonable.
June 27, 1984

I was very pleased to hear my hon. friend from the Progressive Conservative Party say that he wanted the period to be set at six months. I know that on their side, they supported the amendment I proposed on behalf of the Government, which meant that all employees with six months' continuous service shall be entitled to what we provide under Clause 59.2.
Since we were talking about more balanced legislation, in Committee all three Parties tried to deal equitably and fairly with the groups appearing before us. I know that the Progressive Conservative Party was very much in favour of the six-month amendment, and that the Government proposed the six-month amendment since it wanted to expedite this Bill.
As for the three-month proposal, I myself and other Government members believed that going from twelve months to three months was too great a step and that some kind of compromise was preferable. Of course such compromises are necessary whenever a Bill is considered in Committee by the various parties, and I believe that this time we were very successfull, considering both the time element and the number of witnesses that were heard. We were able to reach an agreement among the Parties so that the Bill could be reported back to the House without delay. Mr. Speaker, that is why, if we are talking about balanced legislation, I feel that we should vote against the amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party and that we should proceed with the Bill as amended. I think we should put the question on this Bill unless some of my hon. friends have further comments to make.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be prepared to have the question put in just a moment. Regarding this particular provision, I think the members of the New Democratic Party are saying that we did not have enough time to deal with this Bill. I believe it is a cry for help. We did not have time for a proper consideration of the Bill or to make better improvements to it.
During the discussion of this particular clause, I for example proposed that there might be some sort of a sliding scale of from three months up to 12 months, and perhaps even have extended benefits on one end or the other. Our real concern is for the formation of families. How does this provision affect mothers and fathers who are bringing children into the world and into their homes? We were concerned, for example, that the provision of 24 weeks and 24 weeks cannot run at the same time or that any part of those weeks cannot run at the same time.
This Bill should have accommodated the fact that a mother goes to the hospital, has a child, brings the child home and that is when she needs the help of the father or husband. Most people cannot afford to take two weeks, three weeks, a month or 41 weeks off work. However, they need that immediate time at home to help get the family started. That is the kind of concern for men, women and children that we were trying to have reflected by an amendment. I feel that if we had had more time, we could have in fact met the needs of individual
Canada Labour Code
families and the needs of the creation of families in a more considerable and appropriate manner.
If that is what is being expressed by the motion moved by the NDP, then I am in support of the idea of expressing concern for inadequate amendments that have been made by the Government. We then came up with a compromise and this compromise will have to stand until a Conservative Government can look at this matter in more detail.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. A few moments ago one of my Conservative colleagues suggested that the main beneficiaries of this legislation and particularly of this clause were organized workers in Canada. He somehow attempted to infer that members of the NDP, as Conservative members often charge, are in the pockets of organized labour. I would simply point out that the main beneficiaries of this provision in the Bill are the workers in Canada who are unorganized and do not have union protection. That is a fact. If anyone would care to study at least 50 per cent of the collective agreements in Canada, and particularly those for the industrial sector and perhaps even more for the public sector, he or she would find that these kinds of benefits are already in existence.
It should also be made very clear that we are not talking about paid maternity leave. We are talking about leave of absence for reasons of maternity. There is a vast world of difference between the two, particularly in terms of the cost. The original Bill that came before the committee contained a provision the same as that contained in this NDP amendment requiring that the employee must have completed three months of continuous service before becoming eligible for this maternity leave. On the initiative of, and after pressure by, Conservative members on that committee who requested that the provision be extended to six months' continuous service in order to qualify for unpaid leave of absence, the Government acceded to that Conservative pressure. What my NDP colleagues and I are attempting to do with this amendment is to restore this particular clause of the Bill to its original form so that after three months of continuous service, a period of time which I and I believe most Canadians would deem as being fair, employees may be entitled to unpaid leave for reasons of maternity and for child care where it is required following birth.
I think the amendment is fair and I think the concept is fair. We have been waiting a long, long time for it. Particularly, Canadians who do not have the benefit of being protected by a collective agreement and by the benefits of union representation have been long awaiting an opportunity to have fair treatment. Unpaid maternity leave is certainly the minimum they should be able to expect and demand of their elected representatives in this House.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.

June 27, 1984
Canada Labour Code


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated on division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Murphy) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 which have been grouped for debate.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-34, be amended in Clause 20, by striking out line 21 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"(e) co-operate, to the best of his ability, with any person exercis".
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-34, be amended in Clause 20, by striking out line 24 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"(/) co-operate, to the best of his ability, with the safety and health".
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-34, be amended in Clause 20, by striking out line 39 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"thing constitutes a danger to himself or herself or her unborn child or".


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to determine whether some of the arguments which were used in committee the other evening might be a little more persuasive in this Chamber today. Hon. Members will recall that the New Democratic Party, in the midst of the time constraints which the Government had placed on the House, chose to keep the Chamber sitting until 5.05 a.m. in the morning for voting purposes. Members will also recall that at 9.30 a.m. that same morning, the committee commenced its hearings once again. That same day we discussed this Bill clause by clause and finished at approximately 1.30 a.m. in the morning.
Members were tired when we reached the proceedings which dealt with possible amendments. It seems to me that the committee did not act with the kind of wisdom which the Chamber has come to expect from committees. Perhaps the Minister, with a good night's sleep under his belt, may have had some occasion to reflect on the instructions which he gave to his voting troops who appeared. They had not heard the
witnesses, but as is customary in this Chamber they came to vote.
The Speaker has grouped these three motions for debate and has indicated that there will be two votes in order to dispose of the three amendments. Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 3 have been grouped together.
The most positive feature-and it is a very, very desirable feature-of this piece of legislation is the degree to which it extends the principles which are important to the preservation of health and safety in the workplace. Human life and health are important to all of us. This Bill is an important step foward in the preservation of human life and health in the workplace. The basic principle of that extension is that today we are legislating workers' rights. We are extending to individual workers, to workers collectively and to health and safety committees, certain rights. In Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 3, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) is proposing the logical extension of that mentality. He is proposing that a right should be accompanied by a responsibility. A right which is not accompanied by a responsibility is not as much of a right as it could be or as it should be.
The amendment reads:
(e) co-operate to the best of his ability, with any person exercising-
That indicates that any individual in the workplace has the responsibility to try to the best of his ability to co-operate with worker health and safety committees. The amendment indicates that individuals have a responsibility to their fellow employees and to the public to try to the best of their ability to co-operate and to put into practice good health and safety measures. There could be the best rules in the world, there could be 20 people in the workplace, and there could be the best health and safety committee, yet if one of those 20 workers refused to co-operate with the health and safety committee, what is the purpose of it?
Those of us who have children have said to them: "Do not touch the stove when it is on. Do not touch the burner. Do not grab the kettle when it is full of boiling water". That is a good safety precaution. However, if the children do not obey those instructions and go ahead and touch the stove or grab the kettle, they will get hurt. Quite often a child might not hurt himself, but the child will hurt his baby brother, baby sister, or best friend with that kettle of boiling water.
That is the little chunk of logic, Mr. Speaker, that is missing in this Bill which the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) spotted. He asks Hon. Members of this Chamber to approve just the simple piece of logic that a right is stronger and more effective when it is accompanied by a responsibility, in this case, the responsibility to co-operate with health and safety committees and officers. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is not too much to ask of the Government. That is what Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 3 which we will dispose of with one vote are asking for. I urge Hon. Members of this Chamber to vote yes in order that we can deal with it in a positive way and enshrine it in this legislation.
June 27, 1984

I really do not know why the Speaker has grouped Motion No. 4 with Motions Nos. 2 and 3 because Motion No. 4 is a very different principle. We are enshrining, Mr. Speaker, in this legislation the rights of individual workers in several ways, the most important of which is the right to refuse to carry out a task which would endanger that worker's life or health. Motion No. 4, Mr. Speaker, extends that right to the unborn child.
If the Minister is going to vote against Motion No. 4,1 wish he would stand in this House and tell us why. In committee, Mr. Speaker, he would not tell us why. He would not speak to it at all. He just shook his head no, and members voted against it. Surely, if Hon. Members of this Chamber are willing to give adults certain rights to protect their own health and safety in the workplace, they should also give the right to those same adults to protect the life, health and safety of the unborn child. Who else will act for the unborn child?
It is a tiny amendment, Mr. Speaker, with significant repercussions. Motion No. 4 simply extends the right which we afford to adults, who are capable of taking care of themselves, to the unborn child, who is not capable of taking care of himself or herself. If Government Members do not want that right for the unborn child, surely one of them at least will have the courage to stand in this Chamber and tell us why he or she believes that the unborn child does not deserve that kind of protection.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative amendments under Motions Nos. 2 and 3, while they appear to have no great substance or purpose other than to allow a discussion on these particular clauses in a general way during debate of this Labour Code Bill, cause me some concern. To most people these amendments would sound reasonable, if they were not acquainted with the reality of the workplace. I quote Clause 83(1) (e) of the legislation with respect to Motion No 2:
While at work, every employee shall (e) co-operate with any person exercising a duty imposed by this Part or any regulations made thereunder;-
And with respect to Motion No. 3, Clause 83(l)(f) reads:
While at work, every employee shall (f) co-operate, with the safety and health committee established for the workplace-
The amendment in motion No. 2 reads:
(e)	co-operate to the best of his ability, with any person excercising-
The amendment in motion No. 3 reads:
(f)	co-operate, to the best of his ability, with the safety and health-
Those amendments sound very reasonable and justified on the surface. However, putting this wording in may have an impact of a nature which causes me some concern. It may force employees to take an unrealistic degree of responsibility for enforcing safety, whereas under every provincial workers' compensation act and regulations, the prime responsibility for enforcing safety properly rests on management because it alone has the right to direct the workforce.
I do agree that an employee has a heavy responsibility for protecting his own life and the life of his fellow employees.
Canada Labour Code
However, the prime responsibility must rest upon those who have the power of management. These amendments would tend to force employees rather than management to take the prime responsibility in enforcing safety, to a far greater degree than it is reasonable to expect them to do without placing their jobs in jeopardy. That is the key point.
I would like to give a couple of illustrations. As chairman of an industrial union safety committee and as secretary of a joint management-labour industrial safety committee in my own place of work, Kootenay Forest Products, now Westar, in Nelson, British Columbia, I had to risk my own job a number of times in order to enforce the laws of that province. I had to do so in defiance of warnings and instructions from my employer. While some of us may be a little more gutsy on occasion, I feel it is a little much to expect an average employee to put his job on the line in order to enforce the laws of the workplace, the contract, the province or the country. Most people will just not do that.
I will give an example of a situation under provincial jurisdiction, but it could happen in some industries under federal jurisdiction. It is contrary to the Workers' Compensation Act and regulations in the Province of British Columbia to walk across a moving conveyor or a moving chain. However, in order to keep production moving, workers do that because, contrary to some mythology, the basic purpose of most employees is to put in a good day's work for a good day's pay. Most employees are very conscientious, so conscientious in fact that they sometimes put their lives at risk. The law is very clear in British Columbia. You do not cross a moving conveyor or a moving green chain, but in order to clear up plug-ups, workers are always following the example of their supervisors and jumping up while the machinery is moving to try to straighten out a jam. They take the chance of injury and sometimes the chance of being killed just to keep the production line moving.
On a number of occasions when I saw a worker going beyond what I thought was reasonable-and I was not rigid on that; there has to be some flexibility because our main job is to keep the production flow going-I would simply shut down the machinery and stop the mill. I did that because I could see that some workers were getting too careless and doing that sort of thing too often without forethought. I was threatened with discipline many times but I was prepared, if necessary, to go before the compensation board, take it to the press and to the public in order to draw attention to the lax enforcement of the safety and health laws of that province. Not every employee is willing to do that.
In other cases, my colleague, who used to rotate with me sometimes between being union plant chairman and chairman of the safety committee, has physically picked up employees by the scruff of the neck and threatened them for doing acts which endangered their fellow workers. He was placing himself in jeopardy in order to co-operate to the best of his ability with the decisions of a safety committee and safety management and the laws of the province. He had physically to threaten people, which is a possible Criminal Code violation, in

June 27, 1984
Canada Labour Code
order to stop some of his fellow workers from threatening the lives of their fellow workers by acting carelessly in order to keep production flowing. These amendments may be with the best of intentions, but that is often the problem.
We have an assembly here which is composed largely of people who do not understand the realities of the real world in heavy, blue collar industry. If you have never done anything more dangerous than stabbing your finger with the end of a paper-clip, you cannot understand the values of and the way things work in the real industrial world. For that reason I think the dual amendment, while I believe it is made in good faith, is a mistake and would compound the problems of safety and health enforcement rather than help alleviate them.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand how Motion No. 4 can be grouped with Motions Nos. 2 and 3. Presumably it is for procedural purposes and we will be voting on them separately in any case. I intend to confine myself to Motion No. 4.
This is an important piece of legislation and we have to be careful that we do not rush it through the House. I did not participate in the committee phase of the Bill, but my colleagues did and I believe had sufficient time to focus attention on a number of serious ways in which this Bill is flawed. One of those flaws is addressed in Motion No. 4.
During my examination of the evidence presented to the committee by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, I was struck by their brief. The chairperson of their employment committee recommended that Clause 85(1 )(a) of the legislation be amended to protect not only the woman operating a video display terminal, but her unborn child.
Before I get into arguments supporting that position, we would do well to remember that VDTs are becoming more and more a part of the workplace, particularly the office workplace. We know from statistics that 80 per cent of workers in the service sector are women. If you narrow that down still further to clerical occupations, the percentage is probably higher. All you have to do is go into any bank in this country to see a dramatic exemplification of that fact. We also know that the service sector will probably be the one most affected in the short term by technological change. We now have the introduction of microchip technology in the office workplace through the use of word processors and various other kinds of computerized equipment which, of course, carry with them video display terminals.
What we do not know is just exactly what is emanating from these VDTs. There is a grey area here that science has yet to identify. There is some evidence to indicate that it does constitute a health hazard both to a woman and to the woman carrying a child. Surely, then, the benefit of the doubt should be given and that situation addressed. The amendment proposed by the NAC seeks to correct that situation, and I quote the chairperson of the NAC:
We would ask that you include a paragraph which would read: Every employer shall, in respect of every workplace controlled by him, provide a 15-minute break to each employee who has completed one hour of work in front of a video display terminal.
She goes on:
The employer shall provide annual eye examinations by an ophthalmologist chosen by the employee for employees who work on video display terminals and the employer shall pay to the employee the equivalent wage that he would have paid had the employee remained on the job for the period of time spent undergoing the examination.
That deals with the impact of VDTs on the eyes, but what concerns me here is the impact of this relatively new source of radiation on the unborn child. We are not dealing with something new or breaking new ground because it was addressed by the task force commissioned by the Department of Labour. One of the recommendations of that task force was that employers accept the following guidelines concerning VDTs. First, that pregnant women have the right to be reassigned to other positions without loss of pay, seniority and benefits. That is pretty straightforward. They were impressed enough by the arguments they had encountered during the course of their investigation to come to that conclusion. To quote from page 53 of the task force's report, which goes back to March, 1982:
-the National Action Committee on the Status of Women brief reminded us that standards of what is "safe" can change, as was the case with asbestos. The argument goes that perhaps old VDTs or inadequately maintained VDTs emit more radiation. Or perhaps some sort of synergism occurs in a worksite comprised of several VDTs that could amount to a hazard?
The following excerpts from the many briefs we received show the quandary we found ourselves in. For instance, the Canadian Air Line Employees' Association stated that at Dorval Airport in February, 1981, seven out of thirteen pregnant VDT operators miscarried. The Hospital Employees' Union, Local 180, British Columbia, told us that out of six pregnant VDT operators, two miscarried and of the four babies carried full term, only one was born normal. The B.C. Federation of Labour reminded that four out of seven pregnant VDT operators in the classified ad department of The Toronto Star gave birth to babies with congenital defects.
That seems to me to be sufficient evidence to give the benefit of the doubt to the protection of the woman carrying an unborn child who is exposed to a VDT.
It seems strange, indeed a bit of a paradox, that this amendment would be moved by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. One of the things that group is well known for is its position on the abortion question. But here they join the argument and have put forward the case for the protection of the unborn child, which I think is rather interesting. It reminds me of the fact that medicine is treating the unborn child as a patient in its own right. Indeed, medical science permits doctors not only to treat the unborn child as a separate patient, distinct from its mother, but in certain instances to perform surgical procedures on the unborn child by removing it from the womb without severing the umbilical cord and, upon completion of the surgical procedures, putting the child back in the mother's womb. Usually that stage of the pregnancy is completed. Medical science recognizes the importance of the protection of the unborn child and the right of the unborn child in terms of medical practice. The law is coming around to that recognition as well.
June 27, 1984

Surely the onus is on us to correct what I consider to be a very serious flaw in this Bill. We must ensure that women are protected from the emissions of VDTs and that pregnant women know that the child they are carrying in the workplace receives this protection also. I believe the problem was addressed quite adequately by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and is summed up in the amendment put forward by my colleague which I commend to the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is prepared to recognize the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). 1 doubt that there would be any opposition to his speaking at this time. Nevertheless, I must inquire, since he is the mover of the motion, whether there is unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to speak at this time. Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, through all of these amendments we are trying to send out a signal that the Conservative Party cares about people. We are serious about public health and safety. We are concerned about public health and safety as it relates to new technology. That is not just the technology of a video display terminal. It could relate to other technologies still unspoken of today and still to be found. That is why it is expressed by the word "thing" in the amendment. If these technological developments may bring damage or threat to the mother, who is the worker in this case, or to the unborn child, we should demonstrate care and concern. If we are wrong in this legislation, all we will do is err on the side of caution.
Doctors tell secretaries who are working before video display terminals to be careful. They say that although there may be no proof yet, they should try to stay away from those display terminals because the unborn child may be affected. We want to provide protection and give that kind of insurance.
In these amendments we are setting a tone which recognizes the health and safety of people. People are the basis of our workforce and our whole productivity. They are significant and important. By passing these amendments we indicate those kinds of things. It will be very regrettable if the Government does not accept those motions and the intent of the motions.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) spoke on Motion Nos. 2 and 3. I would like to speak on Motion No. 4 with respect to the rights of female workers. The amendment basically says that she would be able to refuse work if she had reasonable cause to believe that the operation of the machine or the "thing" constituted a danger to her unborn child.
If we do not have this provision in the Bill we run the risk that arbitration in the future will decide that a woman does not have the right to refuse dangerous work if it does not affect her health but only affects the health of her unborn child. I would prefer that we specifically mention the right of a woman
Canada Labour Code
to refuse dangerous work or the operation of a potentially dangerous machine if she has reasonable cause to believe that it could hurt her unborn child.
I believe that if the Minister had spent more time considering this very important amendment he would agree to it. One of the previous speakers mentioned the history of VDTs. Some people on the other side may say that there is no evidence that VDTs do harm. On the other hand, if a woman believes that it is a dangerous situation which is going to be harmful to her unborn child, she should have the right to refuse that work. The same thing can apply in many areas.
I find it ironic that in the past employers have refused to allow women to do certain jobs because they believed it would be harmful to the unborn child. We have allowed that in many situations. An employer can tell a woman that she cannot work on a particular job because it would be dangerous to her unborn child. We should certainly give the mother that same right. I believe all of us in the House can agree to that. I would like to hear a reply from the Minister on this issue.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on the three amendments.
First, amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 3 which have been grouped for the vote, and then amendment No. 4 which has also been grouped with amendments Nos. 2 and 3 for debate, but which will be voted on separately.
My comments concerning amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 3 are very simple. Indeed, I made those comments when the committee was considering the Bill and I pointed out to my Progressive Conservative colleagues that the amendment they were proposing was redundant in the sense that we already have the expression "due diligence", in Clause 83(1 )(e) of the Bill, which is found in Clause 105(5)(Z>) and, therefore that is was not necessary to have an additional amendment which is nothing more than a repetition of what is already proposed in Clause 83.
I gave the same explanations to the committee, Mr. Speaker, and I should think that there is no need at this stage to repeat in the act what is already in Clause 105.
As to the proposed amendment motion No. 4 which would allow an employee to refuse to work if there is a danger not only to himself or herself and her unborn child, that is indeed a very important question. The Government wants to protect not only the mother and her unborn child but all employees under the Canada Labour Code. The series a of amendments we have proposed to Part IV of the Canada Labour Code, which include a number of important amendments to provide better protection for men and women at their work place, have been the subject of extensive consultations between union representatives and employer groups.
There was no specific recommendation concerning this question submitted by the representatives of either the unions or

June 27, 1984
Canada Labour Code
management. To accept at the very last moment this amendment without any proper consultation with the representatives of management and the unions would not be well received in my opinion. I cannot, at the very last minute, accept such an amendment which could change substantially the rules of the game and create a very important exception to our Labour Code as it was not discussed as thoroughly as it should have been with the representatives of the unions and the employers.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the objectives which the representatives of the Progressive Conservative Party wanted to achieve in moving this amendment will certainly be acknowledged. There is no doubt that, during the discussions which will take place between the representatives on the committees ... In passing, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the amendment we are proposing to Part IV of the Code provides for the setting up of committees in the workplace including representatives of both employees and employers to deal with all matters related to work safety. I am convinced that the setting up of these committees under the Act will protect not only mothers, but also unborn children, and that appropriate action will be taken to protect adequately Canadian women in the labour force.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Minister entertain a brief question which might be helpful?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Minister willing to answer a question?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Minister encountered Motion No. 4 in committee last Thursday evening. It is six days later. Did the Minister attempt to consult with employers and labour in the intervening six days? Has there been a solid attempt to consult to see whether or not this amendment was acceptable?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, for weeks on end all kinds of consultations were held not only by myself but by senior department officials. It has not been felt at this point that the matter should be included in amendments to the Labour Code. I am not saying that eventually, labour market developments will not lead to other amendments along the lines proposed by my hon. friend. But at this point, I contend that such an amendment would be premature, considering there has not been adequate consultation, especially since information on VDTs is not complete, and the studies which were made are not conclusive.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before putting the question on Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4, I should remind Hon. Members that a vote on Motion No. 2 will dispose of Motion No. 3. Motion No. 4 will be voted on separately.
The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division. Therefore, this also disposes of Motion No. 3.
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 (Mr. Wenman) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question now is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Wenman) negatived.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-34, be amended in Clause 29, by adding immediately after line 15 at page 48, the following:
"(c) the rationale for the change"
He said: Mr. Speaker, again this is a tonal amendment. It is meant to add a tone of civility to the Labour Code regarding how employers and employees will hopefully react to one another with respect to technological change. The amendment adds the word "rationale". In other words, it asks that reasons

June 27, 1984

be given for the introduction of new technology. We would hope that by bringing those reasons forward technological change could be brought on line in a manner that is co-operative, as opposed to the confrontationalism which presently seems to be the tone of labour-management relations in Canada.
The purpose of this legislation is to instil a new attitude in our concern for women, unborn children and other such concerns. That is why we have added the word "rationale". It is only reasonable that if an employer is going to make changes that could affect the workplace he should explain the reasons for those changes to the employees before the rumours begin.
It is a very concrete motion. I am confident that the Government will accept this motion, in keeping with the spirit in which it is proposed.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak in favour of the amendment. It is a particularly minor amendment which I do not believe the Government should have any trouble accepting. I suggest that the very fact that the Conservative Party can propose an amendment which will be an imposition on the employer would indicate that it would be acceptable to most employers across the nation.
If technological change is going to be introduced, as it would come under the auspices of this Bill, certainly employees have a right to know the reasons for implementing those changes which will cost people jobs or affect their job opportunities in the future. If we could hear from the Minister, perhaps he would accept this amendment. I believe it would help the relationship within the workplace.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I heard the representations of the two Hon. Members who spoke before me, and I feel this amendment has prima facie merits. I do not think it is improper to ask an employer to tell his employees the reasons for the change when he is attempting to make major technological changes.
Therefore, I am ready to accept the amendment on behalf of the government.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that all three Parties are supporting this amendment. Most Members of this Chamber know that along with Senator Nurgitz I worked for several months this winter developing a report on the issue of technological displacement and manpower training and retraining. I felt disappointment in the Bill concerning the clauses affecting technological change in view of the calibre of the evidence we had before the committee on the issue.
One of the conclusions from those months of investigation about new technology in Canada is that we are more like a Third World nation than a modern nation when it comes to our willingness and commitment to adopt new technologies
Canada Labour Code
which would put us back into a competitive position in world terms. Our failure to adopt new technologies is one of the primary reasons that our economy is in trouble, that our dollar has dropped so dramatically, why our interest rates are so high, why we have two million unemployed people and why Canada has slipped from having the second to having the thirteenth highest standard of living in the world. We do not have the attitudes, the systems, the tax policies and the people necessary to take this country into what I might think of as the 20th century, but certainly the 21st century. It is a crisis that we are facing, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased this amendment has been accepted by all three Parties. I think it has been sufficiently explained. All it really does is provide that an employer who is introducing a new technology will share with those employees who will be affected by it the reasons for the change.
The biggest problem we are facing when it comes to the introduction of technology is the knowledge problem. We do not have enough Canadians at the management level or at the employee level who know, understand and have a feeling for the new technologies. That was clear from the responses we got to the questions we asked in committee. The most disappointing group of all, in my opinion, was the group representing the Canadian Labour Congress. I think those people had a contribution to make. The sense of panic which their leadership felt about the possibility of the whole Bill failing made them say to us: "We will not help you. We will not testify and we will not put on the public record our best ideas as to how to make this piece of legislation better". They said: "Hold your nose and pass it because we are panic-stricken". I think the Congress sold their members short, this Parliament short, and the Canadian people short with that kind of attitude. Certainly in this area of technological change, the Canadian Labour Congress has put some resources into it, it has some understanding of it, some clear-cut ideas of what needs to be done, and the nation would have been better served if the Congress had put those thoughts on the public record so we could have had better consideration in committee.
I am pleased at this small step we are taking. I wish we could have taken a larger step.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Wenman) agreed to.


André Ouellet: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
André Ouellet: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.

Canada Labour Code


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, in rising to debate Bill C-34 at third reading, I must raise some points that I have repeated time and time again in committee. The Government has not allowed adequate time for proper study and representation, nor has it allowed enough time for input. The nature of the amendments which have been received indicates the Bill was inadequately drafted, not completely thought out, and that not enough time and consideration was given to consultation by all three Parties.
When the Minister first came to the House he talked about consultation. I accepted that the Minister and his Department had consulted widely and recently had made his intentions known as to the nature of the legislation, and that he had somehow received general approval. We can see by the Minister's own admission today that new technology, video display terminals for example, simple technology that has been with us not since yesterday but for many years, was a subject that was not really talked about and that there were not really any consultations.
Why was that? Certainly there is concern raised throughout the community about video display terminals. Is it because the Government says that first you have to harm women who are pregnant, that you have to have damage done to unborn children, and then when we can prove children have been damaged and a mother has suffered serious harm, we will consider legislation? Why not consider some legislation in advance? Why not make this an important part of the study? Why was this subject not introduced into the committee, allowing the committee to bring forward a study or to raise awareness in the community about it?
The Minister said he had been consulting for four years. We heard from witnesses that the Minister has not consulted with them for months, even years. We heard from major groups who are affected by this legislation. This makes one wonder about consultation. This point was brought out time and time again in committee. Areas that were not dealt with were pointed out and these included areas of technology, health and safety and issues of concern to women generally.
We are concerned that we did not have sufficient time in committee because the Bill was not introduced sooner, although we did spend hour upon hour upon hour in committee. The House should be aware that, in spite of the late presentation of this Bill, members of this committee worked long and hard. They heard brief after brief after brief. We started hearings early in the morning. We could have started earlier. We wanted to start two weeks ago, but unfortunately we could not because the Government had not introduced the Bill into the House. We could have started then, but even when we started we agreed to start at 9.30 a.m. and kept going every night to almost midnight in most cases. We came to the House of Commons. We sat until six o'clock in the morning, after which time we went home and changed our clothes. We were back at 9.30 a.m. to start the committee hearing again. From 9.30 a.m. until 9.30 p.m. we heard presentations before the committee. We were still sitting at midnight. We were still
sitting at one o'clock or two o'clock in the morning, at which point we adjourned.
We did not have time to read the briefs but just had the briefs presented to us. The presenters did not have time to read them to the committee. As committee members we did not have time even to read the briefs. We were listening and we were busy throughout that time. It was an insult to those who spent even a limited time preparing their representations. They complained that they had only two or three days in which to prepare. To their credit, many of them did a fine job. It was an insult to them that the committee did not have the time to hear them fully or to explore their avenues of concern. It is antidemocratic. It is wrong to do this in a democratic society. It is an abuse of our freedom. It is an abuse of our responsibility. I am disappointed to have been forced to participate in it in that manner.
Most of the shortcomings of the Bill as presented could have been corrected with further consultation, even at committee level. If it had been tabled earlier in the session, it could have been discussed for a more extensive period of time with the parties affected, who would understand its implications. It could have been discussed with Members of Parliament. The Government could have allowed us to have an appropriate amount of time in which to prepare the required research, research which should be at the level of debate and discussion of Members of Parliament. However, because of shortage of time the treatment has been only half a loaf.
Of course, those who were mostly left out tended to be those in employers' groups, the people most directly affected. As I stand here today, I am receiving new telegrams from groups across Canada that only found out this week, having read about it in the newspapers, what was happening. They are writing or telegraphing us saying "Just a minute", yet we in our political expediency are forced to rush the Bill through the House.
When announcing the legislation, the Minister set the whole tone of pressure, hurry and lack of caring. In fact, that is what it represented as far as I could see. Even in the press conference which we attended the Minister referred to extended compulsion. In the committee hearings another Minister used the following words: "We will force them". Where is the necessary element of consultation, co-operation and civility in this attitude of force and confrontation?
The Canadian Bankers' Association, not a great favourite of mine, testified before the committee. They said that to say there has been consultation is a little misleading. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business called the exercise a charade and refused to appear before the committee because it had not been consulted.
The Government and the New Democratic Party did not want the Bill to go to committee. My colleague indicated that he was surprised and disappointed in that the New Democratic Party did not want full consultation. When in fact the Progressive Conservative Party insisted upon hearing the Canadian
June 27, 1984

Labour Congress, business groups and interested parties such as academics, religious groups, women's groups and individuals, they said that it would delay the Bill. They indicated that the Bill would not be as good and that something would happen to it. But we insisted upon the hearings. We insisted upon a democratic process. We indicated that in fact we could meet those provisions, bring the Bill before the House and in fact improve it.
We have improved the Bill. If this Bill is not an improved one, I do not know why all Parties in the House passed unanimous motions supporting changes. Why are amendments being put forward by the New Democratic Party? It has been demonstrated that because the Conservative Party insisted upon full democratic hearing, we had full democratic hearings. We worked very hard, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) and others. In fact, I want to put on the record that the Conservative Party was the party of workers on this Bill. At all times in the committee hearings we had a full complement of members. We were entitled to three members and we had three there. In many cases we had four or five there. That cannot be said by either the Government or the NDP.


Ian Deans: We are not entitled to that many.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: No, but they are entitled to have one member there. I am sorry to tell the Hon. Member that there were occasions when they did not even have one there. Also I am sorry to tell him that that happened in the labour debate in the House of Commons. It was the only labour debate to have been held in the House of Commons during this Parliament. It was held on a motion of the Conservative Party. During that one brief afternoon there were many occasions when there was not even one New Democratic Party member in the House of Commons.


Ian Deans: You did not know what you were talking about.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: If we did not know what we were talking about, why did the Hon. Member not rise and say something? He did not rise and say a thing. His Party sat there quietly throughout that debate. We were concerned about this legislation at that time. We tried to get second reading on the floor of the House of Commons. The Government would not bring it forward. Therefore we took one of our Opposition days and brought it forward. We expressed our concern that the Bill was not adequate to meet the concerns of women in the workplace and that it was not adequate to meet the concerns of health and safety. That was our motion. That was the only one debated. The level of participation on the part of the Government and in particular the New Democratic Parly in the corner over here was disappointing.


Ian Deans: Not a soul in the world would believe that.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I hear the Hon. Member. If that is so, I would ask the House Leader to obtain the minutes of the committee meetings. He could simply look at the recording of who was present. The world will have to believe it because it is
Canada Labour Code
recorded and it is true. In fact, I have the record somewhere right here. If the Hon. Member does not know how to read through it, I could give him the specific pages and dates. I have them right here. They indicate who was present and who was not present. I am disappointed to say that it is demonstrated by the record that on occasion the New Democratic Party did not even have one representative there to hear the points of view of the groups appearing before the committee. It is too bad, it is a tragedy, but that is the way it is. In fact he will notice in every copy of the minutes that Conservative Members were present. Usually it was a full or better than full complement.
It is partisanship to express that kind of disappointment in the New Democratic Party and, of course, in the Liberal Party, as I have enunciated again and again, over the whole process it has placed upon the Bill. However, there was a very worth-while moment in committee. That moment was when a Conservative motion was put forward which received unanimous consent. The NDP supported the Conservative motion. The Liberal Party supported the Conservative motion. It was a motion of substance and great principle. In fact, it probably discussed one of the greatest principles in the House of Commons. Of course, I am referring to the amendment to the Rand formula for conscientious objectors-the right of individuals in this great society to dissent or to opt out, the very basis of freedom.
Our Leader, the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney), spoke about another minority issue in the House of Commons on October 6, 1983. He spoke about the generosity of the spirit typical of Canadian society and said:
Our respect for the rule of law, our unparalleled record in civil liberties, our sense of tolerance, our respect for neighbour and his property have combined to make Canada an admired nation of the world.... The issue before us today is one of simple justice ... the sanctity of minority rights. There is no obligation more compelling and no duty more irresistible in Canada than to ensure that our minorities, linguistic and otherwise, live at all times in conditions of fairness and justice. . . . Mr. Justice Hand referred to it as the "spirit of liberty." He told the group of immigrants that the spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right. The spirit of liberty seeks to understand the minds of other men and women. The spirit of liberty weights their interest alongside its own without bias. The spirit of liberty knows that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded. The spirit of liberty, he said, is the spirit of Him, who near 2,000 years ago taught mankind a lesson that it has never quite learned and never quite forgotten, that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest.
If I had my choice on this particular part of the amendment, it is that the legislation would have gone much further than the amendment that has been proposed. If I had my personal choice, intellectual conscience would also have been recognized as well as religious conscience. Intellectual conscience is the trinity of body, mind and soul. There are equal and valid reasons for an exemption on the basis of intellectual conscience as there are for religious conscience.
I do, however, realize the great implications if in fact we had gone that far. I realize the great debate it would have caused in the House of Commons, again delaying this legislation. But what a shame that somehow in this House of

June 27, 1984
Canada Labour Code
Commons I so seldom hear debate about freedom, about the rights of individuals, about individual choice, about ultimate democracy, about intellectual choice, the value of intellectual-ism. These lofty debates do not occur enough here. Sometimes we touch these debates just a little bit with an amendment. This is such an amendment. It is worthy of support of all members of a democratic House of Commons such as this.
I am disappointed that the Government did not include it in the Bill. Again, it must have been their hurry. I would be interested to hear the Minister clarify that somehow he is accepting an amendment, certain parts of which he did not like. That really surprised me about this Minister. 1 hope in this debate the Minister will clarify why he did not support religious conscience or why he did not put this in the Bill in the beginning, and why he reluctantly gave his consent as he did. I have reviewed the transcripts. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt before I carry on further about what he said, but I was very disappointed and surprised that a democrat such as he would have had the reservations that he had regarding this legislation.
In this particular amendment the tenets of faith of the major fundamentalist group who advocated this exemption are in fact the very foundation and value structure upon which this nation of Canada is built. In fact, not just Canada but all western nations have been built and maintained upon the basic tenet, the basic value of religious freedom, freedom of conscience. This faith has carried forth the whole basic value concept of our society, our concept of democracy and the very foundation of our lives and our belief structures.
It is essential that it be recognized that this amendment in fact did, as I said, cross Party lines. It does more than cross Party lines. This amendment is not new in the House of Commons; it has been brought in by political Parties of all persuasions across the country.
I was particularly pleased with the motion. I chose to introduce the motion of the Seventh Day Adventists, which I particularly liked because of the way it sprang from their conviction, and I liked the positive way they presented it to us. In the end, in discussion we felt that because it had been tested in the courts, we would move to another great Conservative jurisdiction and seek the advice of the Government of Ontario. We chose the amendment basically of the Government of Ontario. This is the amendment that was accepted. It states:
Where the Board is satisfied that an employee, because of his religious conviction or beliefs, objects to joining a trade union, or to the paying of regular union dues to a trade union, the Board may order that the provision in a collective agreement
(a)	requiring, as a condition of employment, membership in a trade union, or
(b)	requiring the payment of regular union dues to a trade union,
does not apply to that employee so long as an amount equal to the amount of the regular union dues is paid by the employee, either directly or by way of deduction from his wages, to a registered charity, within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, mutually agreed upon by the employee of the trade union.
Where an employee and the trade union are unable to agree on a registered charity for the purposes of subsection (2), the Board may designate any such charity as the charity to which payments should be made.
In the committee we talked about improving even that particular amendment from the Ontario Conservative Code. We felt maybe there was some way to move it away from the Labour Relations Board, that somehow this could be between the worker, his union and his employer, because the principle is so significant that it could not be a mutual agreement, that we would have to add to the workload of the Board.
I would like to have seen some type of an amendment which could have caused that mutuality, that tone. Maybe in future Parliaments we will have time to do that. Again, even with this amendment we had to reach out and grab what was available. Nothing was prepared by the Department. We had to reach out to other resources where they took time to study and to listen. As I said, I am disappointed that there was not more study done on probably what was the most significant amendment to this Bill.
We tried to do other things with this Bill as well as move that amendment. Some amendments have been successful, some not. In committee, and now as part of the Bill that has been reported back to the House of Commons, the Conservative Party strengthened the provisions that protect workers from sexual harassment through an amendment brought to us by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
I pay tribute to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) who worked very hard. After we sat in committee, she met again with the group and they worked on drafting such amendments. To her credit, working with that committee and assisting the committee resulted in amendments such as those the Conservative Party made on behalf of issues of concern to women.
We clarified the definition of sexual harassment as being any conduct, comment, gesture or contact of a sexual nature that might on reasonable grounds be perceived by that employee as placing a condition of a sexual nature on employment or on any opportunity for training or promotion. Before this clarification, the perception of sexual harassment could have been made by any employee, including those not involved. The clarification leaves the perception of sexual harassment of the employee involved. I think that was an appropriate amendment.
The Conservative Party also strengthened the Bill's sections on occupational health and safety. We were concerned about people and the accident rate in Canada. The accident rate causes more work stoppages in Canada than all the strikes put together. That is serious. The workplace needs to have greater concern about health and safety. We did not feel that this Bill was in any way going far enough as far as measures of health and safety are concerned.
One area that we wanted to change was where an employer's duties include the obligation to investigate, record and report to the authorities as prescribed all accidents, occupational diseases and other hazardous occurrences known to the employer. We added the words "known to the employer" in order to clarify that such incidents known to the employer will be his responsibility.
June 27, 1984

Not only were we concerned with the safety of workers in the workplace, but as well we wanted the protection to extend to the general public. To the clause which described the obligation of the employee to "report to the employer any thing or circumstance in a workplace is likely to be hazardous to the safety or health of the employee or any of his fellow employees", we added the phrase "or other persons granted access to the workplace by the employer". In other words, we took what I feel is quite a progressive step.
Through this addition, we have said that we are not only concerned about the health and safety of an employee or employer but we are also concerned about the health and safety of other persons granted access to that workplace. We are concerned with public safety and public safety is as important as individual employer and employee safety. I am very, very pleased that our amendment was accepted by the Government and now forms part of the Bill that is before us today.
The addition of those words broadens the range of persons whose safety should be of concern to employees when reporting accidents or hazards in the workplace. People in the workplace who are not employees now enjoy the same protection as do others. These are just some of the improvements that our Party introduced in committee that have been accepted by the Government. Unfortunately, the Government failed to accept the greater protections for workers which were contained in other amendments made by members of the Progressive Conservative Party in committee. Those amendments were dealt with very quickly. They were amendments upon which even I would have liked to have had more thought, more discussion and more broad consultation.
We wanted to define very clearly what actions an employer could take to punish those guilty of sexual harassment. We suggested that the employer be empowered to take disciplinary measures as outlined in the policy or as provided in the collective agreements. Instead, the Government stuck with its own vague wording: "the employer will take such disciplinary measures as he deems appropriate".
We are concerned about the potential hazards to workers resulting from exposure to video display terminals and we expressed that concern in an amendment. Unfortunately, the Government decided to turn that amendment down. We proposed several amendments other than the one that is before us today relating to new technology and the health dangers that are created thereby. I am disappointed that those amendments did not receive more consideration and that there is not more time to include them in the dicussion here this afternoon. Of course, the Government rejected those amendments on the basis of cost, putting the health and safety of workers secondary to economic considerations.
The most tragic rejection of an amendment was the Government's failure to protect the rights of the unborn. We are still disappointed by that. Just today, we have pleaded with the Government to hear us. The Government has yet to announce that there will be some form of in-depth study done to assure
Canada Labour Code
the protection of our workers from new technology and particularly the technology of video display terminals. Again, there was a principle inherent in this particular amendment. I believe that the Labour Code is important because it deals with principles and is supposed to show the way. I believe that any government legislation that shows the way by going beyond a worker to a child and beyond a child to an unborn child is legislation with a worthy principle. That worthy principle should in fact have been included in this Bill and I am disappointed that it has not been. I am pleased that we have at least taken some time this afternoon to discuss in the House of Commons this particular situation. I am sure it is a situation that a new Conservative Government would wish to address on an early occasion.
Time is passing quickly and we certainly do want to give others an opportunity to speak. I could go on to speak of a great many other things we brought up in committee. Those are on the record of the committee hearings. Of course, we wanted to recognize the contribution made by academics to the creation of this legislation through the presentation of ideas. Therefore, we called for a particular amendment that related to the megaprojects provision in Clause 22 because we felt that there had not been enough empirical study on the implications of "carve-out" agreements.
The Canadian Construction Association presented a 600-page academic study entitled Megaprojects, which was written by Weiler, Hebert and others. That study outlined some of the adverse effects that magaproject carve-out agreements may have. We want to see any legislation that we create somehow add to the stability of the workplace because that is what workers want and that is what our society needs. It is to the mutual interests of all that we should have that stability, that agreement and those sound labour-management relations.
According to this academic study to which I just referred, the intention to create such an attitude may in fact create the opposite. It would appear to us that this study was not looked at adequately before this matter was brought forward. The representations of Mr. Weiler included concerns regarding too much ministerial power being granted in determining what constitutes a major project. We suggested that this should be defined in the Code and qualified only if necessary to the public interest. There was also a fear that short-term major project contracts with high wages could cause instability and work stoppage in general construction projects by drawing workers away. However, I would put on the record of the House of Commons that the Minister did make a promise. I hope he will make that same promise here today. He made a commitment to have further consultations and make further studies regarding this megaprojects provision. He spoke about the method by which this particular clause of the Bill may be proclaimed in order to ensure that there would be no disruption.
On behalf of the Dominion Marine Association and the Canadian Lake Carriers Association, we also moved to exempt the shipping industry from Part IV of the Code because of the jurisdictional overlap that could occur with the Canada Ship-

June 27, 1984
Canada Labour Code
ping Act and the Canadian steamship Act. We did not secure that provision but the Minister has assured us that full consideration of the legal implications will be undertaken before royal assent. We will hold him to that, although we may be looking to a new Minister by the time we get around to that process.
In committee on May 15, after my prompting and questioning, the Minister made the following promise:
I think that indeed it would be very useful that there be public hearings and that the number of union and employers' representatives be invited as witnesses to give views on the legislation and possibly to suggest amendments to improve the legislation one way or another. I would think that it would be very useful. I would look forward to it and indeed I would not oppose it. 1 think 1 would encourage such a thing to take place.
The fact that the Minister did encourage and allow such consultations to take place is a tribute to the Minister, even if it did take him 43 hours to do so. I believe we got two hours' sleep out of 43 or 45 hours at that time. However, I did wish to recognize and appreciate the fact that this has gone through the democratic process and, as we complete the Bill today, it is still going through the democratic process and will have full process of law. The only thing that did not follow the full process was the fact that there was not as much time as there should have been for members of the public to understand the Bill before they made presentations. Timing was the greatest villain, and in this case it was the responsibility of the Government.
I could carry on, Mr. Speaker, but as I look at the clock and in view of the time, I would like to demonstrate to members of the New Democratic Party something we demonstrated in committee. One of the members of the New Democratic Party said in debate that if the Conservative members proposed it, it must be all right because employers listen to Conservative members. I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we have demonstrated that we did listen. We heard not only from employers but from union groups, women's groups and academic groups. We listened to as many of the individuals and groups as we could. We even heard from religious groups. We called for and heard from a cross-section of the Canadian public and that is who we represent. We do not represent only the workers. We do not represent only the employers. We represent all groups. We are not bound or tied to anything except the interests of the public and the broad public will. The only interests we represented in every case were the interests of a broad cross-section of representatives. We spoke fairly-


Mr. Hovdebo:: Just like Bill Bennett.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I am sorry that the Hon. Member who just spoke did not attend the committee hearings. We made amendments on behalf of all of these groups. We were their spokesmen in committee. We protected their right to be heard. Once they were heard, we presented amendments on their behalf for discussion. Many of those amendments were accepted.
Hopefully, the Conservative Party has signalled to Canadians that it is open to hearing and willing to working in a manner of co-operation, open-mindedness and civility. We want to end the tone of confrontation which has been featured in Canada far too long. We will be a government of reason which will be open to all groups and representative of the broadest cross-section of our society.
I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this subject. I look forward to an opportunity in the fall when we can begin to study these appropriate and important issues in more detail.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments? On debate, the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey).


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that I listened with great attention to the contributions made by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) on third reading of this legislation. I was very impressed by his remarks, as I was by his performance in committee, which as he stated was of a marathon proportion. He worked together with his colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), who has a particular interest in human relations. I think the Conservative Party has been more than co-operative in the passage of this Bill. I do believe that the contribution made by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) meant that the committee consisted of Members from all Parties and had common objectives.
The first objective was to pass the Bill on time because of its admitted advantages. Some of the changes were obvious and were required for the benefit of workers. Second, I think we felt an obligation to produce what has been described as the balanced Bill. Unless labour Bills are balanced to the optimum, they can hardly be effective.
I would like to speak very briefly about a number of matters on which the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West spoke- technological change, safety and women in the workforce. I do so, if not with expertise, at least with concern for these particular issues.
I arrived here in 1962. It might have been before the Hon. Member was born, although I am not sure. My maiden speech in the House of Commons was about industrial relations, although I was an employer of labour at the time. Later on, I had the privilege of being the Minister of Labour who brought in the first modernized Labour Code. In order to signify the progress which has been made in the last 15 or so years, that Labour Code reflected the findings of what I had recommended to students in the industrial relations field. The Woods task force was established. It was a multimillion dollar study performed by academics and experts over the better part of two years. That study reflected the terrible labour unrest of the sixties, when technology was brought very much to the fore and the Labour Code of the day made it virtually impossible
June 27, 1984

for workers to have any input into the impact, whether negative or positive, of technology.
Indeed, I remember in the early 1960s when the railway workers of western Canada lay down on the railway tracks in Wainwright and Nakina in order to make their point. Because collective agreements were of fixed durations-and under no circumstances could they be re-opened for negotiation-management would astutely introduce amendments which dealt with technology or technological change in the middle of a contract. The most flagrant example of that was the introduction of diesels which replaced steam engines. That made it possible for the railways to by-pass the beautiful little communities of the west which were entirely dependent on the trains stopping for coal. Virtually, those communities were wiped out by the new technology. The railway officials had a very good case. They said that they could not reject technology any more than a cotton gin, the Industrial Revolution or the wheel. We were determined to bring in a labour code which made it imperative for management to consult and then negotiate with the workers, not whether technology should be introduced, but that the impact be minimized if it was negative and that the rewards be shared if the impact was positive.
I must congratulate the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet). He has brought in a Bill which, as his critics have already stated, is not perfect and is not the ultimate, but it is a dramatic step forward from the Bill which I presented and passed through the House of Commons in the late sixties. There are some things about this legislation, as the Minister knows, which concern me. One of the things which concerns me is the blurring of lines between the rules which cover collective bargaining. Yet, necessary standards are needed for more than two-thirds of the workers of this country who have no protection because they are not unionized. Sometimes the lines get blurred and abused. I would have liked to have seen a clause which permitted organized labour and their employers to opt out of the impact of the Labour Code. That may happen the next time this legislation comes before the House, but this is probably my last speech and I will probably not be here. There is no substitute for a negotiated settlement and no substitute for collective agreements.
One of the most significant things which we were able to do in the House of Commons-because we allowed labour to open collective agreements if technology was introduced without sufficient notice-was to force labour and management to include in collective agreements the ways and means to deal with technology. It was brought out in committee that there have not been more than a dozen cases sent to the Canada Labour Relations Board, at the request of unions, which were based on complaints that there was no opportunity to negotiate. Therefore, management has become enlightened. They have become enlightened just in time, because if this country is to continue to produce and generate the capital which is needed for social policy, pensions, maternity leave and so on, we must be a more productive country. We must have a more productive workforce in order to generate the additional capital. We are not only behind Japan, which we hear about all the
Canada Labour Code
time, we are falling very far behind the other countries in the OECD. In Europe, unions have been a way of life, particularly since the second World War. Management in Europe has tended to recognize the social contract. Some of the things which we have attempted to include in this Bill recognize the unique problems of women in the workforce, including sexual harassment. I believe we have at the present moment a very unique worker coming on stream. Unlike 15 years or 30 years ago, the worker today tends to be a knowledgeable worker rather than simply a skilled worker. He or she has had a college or university education. These new workers are mobile. They are intelligent. They face the new world with great confidence and they are not afraid of technology or computerization. They only ask to be informed and consulted and to be listened to. Employers who refuse to recognize that fact do so at their own risk as does the country which does not put through the type of enlightened legislation with the thrust which this Bill has. It is not Utopia but it is a considerable improvement over the basic Labour Code.
What concerns me is that the Department of Labour, the Canada Labour Relations Board and others do not always understand the spirit behind the proposed legislation. What was the intent? Why is the clause written in that way? What did the legislature mean when this clause or that clause was discussed? I would like to give an example which is very close to my heart. In 1966, the most difficult labour situation in Canada was at the waterfront, the longshoring industry. It involved not only Montreal and Vancouver but all of the waterfronts of Canada. Men were treated little better than animals. They had to go every morning to a hiring hall to be selected for employment with no guarantee when they arrived there on a cold day that they would be hired. It was the law of the jungle with strong-arm tactics. There was corruption. It was a very bad situation. Ports like Montreal were strikebound for weeks and weeks. The Smith inquiry was set up to improve the situation. I rejected its report because in my opinion it was based on the premise that the trouble in the ports was essentially caused by employees. I recognized that those employees were stripped of their dignity, and we set out to do something about it. We also recognized, Mr. Speaker, the need for increased productivity. Today the number of employees in the Montreal waterfront is approximately half of what it was in 1968. The productivity is hundreds of per cent greater. Why? Because the worker now goes to work in dignity, in an automobile, with a guaranteed 40 weeks wages out of 52 weeks whether or not there is work. The hiring halls have been eliminated, pension plans have been introduced. Technology is not rejected. It is encouraged because so many cents per tonne coming in through technology, through containerization, find their way into the union for its particular projects, sickness benefits, pensions, or whatever.
This was not accomplished, Mr. Speaker, by myself or the Department. It was accomplished by intelligent use of new legislation. It was accomplished by making it mandatory for all employers to bargain as one and for all unions to bargain as

June 27, 1984
Canada Labour Code
one, thus eliminating the old game of playing one off against the other. If you look at the old Code, I believe Section 132, you will find that we set it up in such a way that these associations would have total jurisdiction over what was called "geographical delineation". I believe that is the way we put it. It simply meant that when negotiating time arrived, management would speak as one voice and so would the union.
In recent years, Mr. Speaker, in the 1980s, the Canada Labour Relations Board seems to me, as an observer, to have lost the sense of what was the intent. So we have a situation now where across the river some intelligent employer is setting up shop with union or non-union people who are prepared to work for less, not bothering to bargain but simply taking advantage of collective agreements which are eventually struck across the river, thereby reintroducing, if you like, the seeds of discontent, the destruction of something which has proven to be successful.
There has not been a major strike in the waterfronts of Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Quebec or Three Rivers in ten years. The workers average between $30,000 and $40,000 a year. They earn it and are entitled to it. Yet the Canada Labour Relations Board, through decisions made in good faith, threatens that situation because it does not understand the spirit behind Section 132. It does not understand the importance of keeping the unions and management together. I mention this as an area which I do hope will be looked at every thoroughly by committee or by the House the next time the Code comes forward for debate. Perhaps Section 132 could be amended to make a little clearer to the members of the Canada Labour Relations Board what was the original intent of that particular section.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I share the views of the officials critic for labour of the Conservative Party. I share his concern for the argument advanced so eloquently by the Adventist Church. However, I must remind him as well that the Rand formula is not exactly breaking new ground. It is something which has been around for decades. It was introduced in the automobile industry. It was meant to provide a solution to people who did not want to belong to a union but who recognized that unions work on their behalf whether or not they are members. I have no opposition to the amendments which provide something whereby people of conscience could remain in the workforce and contribute indirectly to the work of the union.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is probably the most important piece of legislation which has gone through the House for some time. It is important because it is, perhaps, a belated recognition by the House and by the Government that unless the climate of co-operation between management and labour is such that the adversarial characteristics will be minimized, and unless the climate in this country is such that management, labour and government can work in unison in co-operation and dignity, we are not going to be able to maintain the flow of private capital to production, because we are still a decade behind the kind of industrial relationships which prevail in many other countries.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, in my speech I was highly critical of the lack of participation of Hon. Members of the Liberal Party and of the Conservative Party in committee. I want to correct that. Because of the fact the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) has been here since 1962, and the fact that he has contributed his energy and a big chunk of his life to this House of Commons, one would have expected him to have been the last person to be at the committee meeting at 2 a.m. But he was there at 2 a.m. and then at 9.30 a.m. and throughout the hearings. He was there caring, being constructive and being positive. I thank him for that contribution and I did mean to include him in my comments, along with the Hon. Member for Calgry West (Mr. Hawkes) and the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) who sat there hour upon hour to make this legislation better. I wanted to recognize that and to thank him for his service and the comments he made today.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. gentleman that I did not take any of his remarks the wrong way. I know exactly what he meant and I share his views. I suppose 1 was there, as he was, because I was brought up in a school of thought that you have an obligation to the job you take on, wherever it may be. When work is a pleasure, then you attend to it. When the Minister asked me to join that committee I looked on it as an opportunity in some simple way, through moral persuasion or seduction or even bullying, to come up with a Bill which I felt was non-partisan in nature. At no time in committee did I think we had broken down into pro and anti-labour, pro and anti-Liberal, or pro and anti-anything. I think all of us sensed that our frustration was that if we only had more time, we could do better. I just wanted to say that when you get discouraged, look at the original Bill in 1968 and see what progress we have made in 15 years. It has really been remarkable.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see that this Bill is finally at third reading stage. As I mentioned when we started the second reading debate on this Bill, our caucus had been working ever since the election in 1980 to have changes made to the Canada Labour Code. I mentioned then that we had asked for a special House order which would allow this legislation to go to committee so that representatives from different groups could appear and we would report back for final disposition in the last couple of days of the sitting. When I hear some of the rhetoric coming from the spokesmen for the Conservative Party, I recognize that it is basically a defensive reaction by a Party which was smoked out a number of times here and in committee. An impartial observer of that committee would tell you that the Conservatives were doing everything they could to stall and not be caught. Their attempts to add more and more witnesses as the week progressed were not to hear more voices but to prevent the Bill from passing.
June 27, 1984


Mr. Mayer:: What a bunch of garbage.


Rodney Edward Murphy: 1 regret we have had to take this tone in debate but after hearing the wild rhetoric of the official spokesman for the Conservative Party, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), it is very obvious that they have only looked at this as a political exercise rather than as a very important piece of legislation.


Charles James Mayer: We are getting wild rhetoric from you right now.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Four years ago our caucus toured federal and provincial work sites right across this country. We went to every province and all sorts of industry and came out with a report called Graveyard Shifts: Life and Death on the Job in Canada. We presented that report to successive Ministers of Labour and got up in this House many times asking for changes to the Labour Code. I am glad to see that some of those amendments came forward, even if it took until the fifth year of this Government's rule. It is unfortunate that the actual debate on this legislation did not take place until the last three weeks of this sitting.
I agree with one aspect of what the Conservative representative said, that we should have had more time to study the legislation. I believe there could be amendments made that would strengthen the legislation. There were groups who, had they had more time, could have come forward with suggestions which would have improved the legislation. But that is not the case. We were forced to deal with the Bill within a week in committee. Even though it meant sitting late hours and committee members were fatigued, we agreed to hear from every group who wished to speak. But as our House Leader said the day after this Bill was tabled, we wanted it passed because we recognized that for the most part it was an improvement which would protect the life and safety of more Canadian workers. It would provide legal protection for federal Government employees who come under Part IV of the Canada Labour Code, protection they never had before. We also saw that there were some benefits in maternity leave and child care for those people who come under the Canada Labour Code. I must say that we saw some strictly token efforts in the area of sexual harassment, part-time workers and technological change. But they were improvements and, recognizing this session was coming to an end, we agreed to pass the legislation. We did all in our power to force both the Government to act and the Official Opposition to move on this legislation.
I make no apologies for our position. It was a deliberate attempt by us to get the legislation passed. We recognize that there were some who saw political benefit in not seeing it passed. There are some who felt they could benefit whether or not it passed. But to our way of thinking the women of Canada, the workers of Canada, are much better protected if it is passed, and that was the only goal we had. We accomplished that goal.
Some of the presentations we heard this afternoon at report stage and third reading talked about how the legislation was
Canada Labour Code
improved because the Conservative Party made representations on behalf of the individuals who came forward. However, were the women of Canada who came forward asked by the Conservatives or Liberals if they wanted the maternity leave or child care qualifying period moved up from three months to six months? No, they were not. So when people get up and make sanctimonious speeches about how they represent others, take a look at what they really did.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Which amendments did you present?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Look at the amendments the Conservatives had included in this Bill which will hurt many parents over the next couple of years. I hope we do not have to wait for four years into the next Parliament to make improvements in this legislation. I said earlier that part-time workers were just barely mentioned in this legislation. The technological change provisions are mere tokenism at this stage of the game. There is a lot left to do and I hope that with some improved rules in the House the committee can sit down fairly early in the next Parliament and look at what needs to be done to protect our workers who come under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Questions or comments? Debate.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-34. First of all, I wish to thank Hon. Members for agreeing to deal expeditiously with this Bill. There certainly was a time when we did not think we would be able to have this legislation passed before the House adjourned for the summer. However, I believe that especially the firm resolve of Canadian union organizations, which did not hesitate to make direct representations to the three Parties sitting in the House-as I said, I think this very firm resolve on the part of Canadian unions to see this labour legislation approved, and of course thanks to the efforts of all three political Parties, all this was an incentive for us to take all action necessary to get this Bill through the House, even when it meant sitting very late, on occasion, to expedite consideration of the Bill in committee.
Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to pay tribute to all those who helped realize this Bill. I think it is a piece of very important legislation for labour, and I am very proud to say that my senior officials have worked unremittingly for months to prepare these amendments to the Canada Labour Code. They conducted major consultations with all parties concerned in this country. I would like to stress more specifically the support, good advice and enthusiasm of my Deputy Minister, Mr. Mark Daniels, who has helped me enormously during the last few weeks in working towards passage of this Bill.

June 27, 1984
Canada Labour Code
I also wish to mention the very professional and very thorough work done by the two Assistant Deputy Ministers, Mrs. Wendy Porteous and Mr. Bill Kelly, who both took part in consultations on amendments to Part V and Part IV of the Canada Labour Code, and thanks to whom we now have a Bill that, to a considerable extent, meets the aspirations of Canadian unions.
I also wish to offer thanks for the often important but unspectacular work done by many officials in my Department who helped to draft and prepare documents and prepare the Bill, especially Mrs. Elizabeth MacPherson, Mr. Mac Rowe, M. Doug Baldwin, Mr. Jim McLellan, Dr. Ratna Ray, Mrs. Carol Racine and Mr. Peter Sorokan, who all worked to help make this Bill acceptable to both union and management representatives.
Once again, I think it is important to emphasize that we have been able to improve the Canada Labour Code thanks to the many groups in the labour and the business world we were able to consult. Thanks to these consultations which I myself, my predecessors and my officials have had with these representatives during the past years since these consultations took almost two years we were able to define a number of practical and realistic considerations and, especially, to formulate amendments that are progressive and appropriate at this time.
Mr. Speaker, more than ever I am confident that industrial relations in this country will be able to exist in an atmosphere of trust, civility and mutual respect. Undoubtedly, the Bill we are about to adopt today is particularly welcome to the unions, but I think that management representatives who made representations to the Committee understood that it was important to respond to the legitimate claims of the unions. The Bill we are proposing and are about to approve today is a step in the right direction towards improving the job environment and labour relations. I believe that our society, like all other western industrialized societies, will continue to develop rapidly and that this will be due to the incredible rate at which technology is progressing. However, I think that basically, we must have legislation that ensures that all of us, wherever we are, will be treated fairly and equitably. I think that this legislation, which is well-balanced and responds to the legitimate concerns of Canadian workers, nevertheless can be accepted and acknowledge by management as a Bill that is appropriate to our modern society.
I think that one of the major social facts of the eighties is the change in composition of the labour force population. The proportion of women in the labour force has risen over the last thirty years from 22 to 40 per cent, and in 1980, the participation rate of women exceeded 50 per cent. This massive arrival of women on the labour market has obliged people to re-examine their values and governments to rethink their policies.
Twenty years ago, labour policies did not have to consider the family responsibilities of workers. As a general rule, once women were married, they withdrew from the labour force,
while men dedicated themselves to their careers. However, due to a number of reasons that are economic, educational, demographic and psychological in nature, these differences have ceased to exist. Although men no longer dominate the sector of paid employment, women however, still have, though not willingly, a monopoly over unpaid domestic work. That is why they are often unable to take full advantage of their newly won access to paid employment. As many female workers are well aware, interrupting their period of employment to have and raise children reduces their years of seniority and adversely affects their chances of promotion and their eligibility for social benefits.
Mr. Speaker, these are so many irrefutable arguments in favour of the revision of Part III of the Canada Labour Code which I proposed to the House and which will very soon be approved by this Parliament. I have no hesitation in saying that in all my political career, after the cooperative housing program established when I was Minister responsible for urban affairs, this is the second most important social measure which I have had the privilege of being involved with as Minister. I think it is important to point out that the amendments we have submitted to Parliament are definitely to the advantage of Canadian working women, with respect to Labour Code Part III and most of the series of amendments found in Part IV concerning occupational safety and health.
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of repeating the details of every aspect of this Bill. They are now well known. During previous interventions in the House, I had the opportunity to elaborate on the major amendments to Parts III, IV and V of the Labour Code.
Since I do not want to speak at length at this stage and would rather conclude my remarks as quickly as possible, I want to say before closing the debate that I was extremely pleased with the reaction of the unions. I want to thank publicly the CLC and the other labour organizations which gave their support to Bill C-34. As Minister of Labour, I was particularly glad to hear so many positive comments about this labour legislation which, I am sure, will stand us in good stead and certainly pave the way for more harmonious labour relations in Canada. I am convinced that the adoption of this Bill will signal the onset of a new era of harmony, understanding and co-operation between the Government of Canada and the Labour movement and, I should hope, between unions and the business community.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge Hon. Members to give unanimous approval to this Bill for which Canadian workers, men and women alike, have waited so long.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Any questions or comments?
June 27, 1984


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I see that the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) has returned to the House. I wanted to bring to his attention and yours, Sir, a certain remark made by the Hon. Member for Lincoln when he referred to another Member of the House as a "sidekick from Calgary". I would suggest that that is contrary to the rules of the House. It is disrespectful to the Member in question and leaves me not knowing to whom the Hon. Member for Lincoln referred. Perhaps he would like to withdraw the remark or rephrase it somehow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. I do not think it is necessary for the Member for Lincoln to rise. The Chair has not heard the Member referring specifically to an Hon. Member, so it could hardly be considered an insult.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point. I was referring to the friend of the Official Opposition critic of the Department of Labour. I suppose that I could apologize because we became rather close in the committee. I want to assure the hon. gentleman that I used the word "progressive", which hardly includes him, so he should not be worried about confusion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: We were on questions.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I thank the Member from the Northwest Territories for his intervention. I think I was the Member from Calgary who was referred to.
If the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) values the committee process so highly and the commitment that committee members made to that process, how did we end up with only four days in which to hear witnesses and have a clause by clause discussion? How did that happen if it is such a valued process?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I cannot resist the temptation of answering the Hon. Member by saying that, our parliamentary process being what it is and because of recent incidents such as the bell-ringing incident which made us waste valuable time and which was sparked by the Progressive Conservative Party, as were endless, abusive and never-ending debates by the Opposition on many Bills introduced in the House, unfortunately Parliament is forced to sit until the very end of the session and quickly adopt a number of Bills.
Had the Progressive Conservative Party not made us waste so much time in the House, we would probably have had a few extra days to consider Bill C-34 in committee.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister is way off base now and again, and this happens to be a good example.
Canada Labour Code

The Minister will know that the bells rang for democracy and freedom because the Government was attempting to deny adequate examination of legislation. A four-day period to hear witnesses and to deal with legislation clause by clause is another example of the fact that this Government and this Minister in particular-who seems to be a critical Minister with a changed leader and someone of influence-still believe that it is bad for Canadian society to have a process which allows for a little daylight and permits sufficient time to question witnesses and argue for amendments.
Let me ask the Minister the question that I had in mind originally. I was going to compliment him because it is the first time in the life of this Parliament that I had seen a sufficient number of senior officials present at all times during the questioning of witnesses. It is the very first time that any Cabinet Minister of the Government brought senior officials in and left them there to hear witnesses and the questions and arguments. That resulted in 13 amendments, which is considerably more than the average, even though the time frame was short. Does the credit belong to the Deputy Minister or was it the Minister's idea that those senior officials be present?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the example Parliament has given us with Bill C-34 should normally be followed for all pieces of legislation. Although the Progressive Conservative Members claim that they have not had enough time to consider this Bill, I believe that they have had ample time to consider the principle of the Bill at second reading stage, to receive all the submissions they wanted in the Committee, to examine these submissions and even to question certain witnesses, to examine the Bill clause by clause with the Minister and the departmental officials, and finally to come back to this House after working hard in the Committee to give passage to Bill C-34 in one day.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we should spend as much time as we have spent on Bill C-34 at all stages for a great many other pieces of legislation. I believe that this Bill received the attention it deserved. With a lot of good will on both sides, we showed that we could study a very important Bill within a few days, as is regularly the case in the British Parliament, where even the most important and controversial Bills are passed within a few days. Which brings me to say that, in the next Parliament, I hope that we shall have the cooperation of the Progressive Conservatives, who will still be in the Opposition, to amend parliamentary procedure so that we may deal with our legislative program within a reasonable time-


An Hon. Member:: In the interests of the Canadian public!


André Ouellet: -and especially, as my friend has suggested, in the interests of the Canadian public.

June 27, 1984
Canada Labour Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any other questions? Debate. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with somewhat mixed emotions. I would like to assure the Minister that as the next Government we would welcome his input in the future. We fully intend to be that Government and we fully intend to demonstrate a little bit of openness and give sufficient time to hear witnesses and as well ensure sufficient process to allow Members of Parliament to make a real contribution to legislation which will pay off in better government for Canadians.
Let me begin by complimenting the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) who spoke at some length today. He did an excellent job of encapsulating the process, the type of amendments we were able to include in this legislation, the reasons behind them, and the difficulties that we as a Party had to overcome to achieve those gains.
Having said that, let me revert to what I said at the beginning, that I had somewhat mixed emotions. This process has brought back some memories to me. One was my maiden speech in this House in 1979 when I tried to explain that the exploration of the oil and gas industry was really an occupation fraught with danger. I did not think Members of this Chamber really understood that industry or the difficulties it faces. I stand here today knowing the National Energy Program is in place and some of the consequences from it are a pretty clear indication that I did not do my job in 1979. Obviously I was not persuasive enough in this Chamber.
I also remember July, 1950, some 34 years ago. That is a long time in the lives of any of us. The last two or three weeks have reminded me of a switchman on the Canadian National Railways. In the middle of the night he was swept off the top of a box car by wires belonging to the Alberta Government Telephones and fell on an embankment. Workers of the City of Calgary were digging a ditch alongside the railroad. He rolled down the embankment and under the wheels of a Canadian National train and was killed. That was July, 1950, 34 years ago. The mixed emotions come because that man was my father. I was 16 at the time. I have since participated in a process where something like that is a little less likely to happen today, and of that I am proud.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: But mixed with that sense of pride is anger. I am angry at a process that trades workers' safety for some of the other garbage that was brought forward in the Bill. We have to accept some of the garbage in the process. The protection for the Canadian people that has been worked out in the British Parliament and in this Parliament is the time to examine, the time to hear witnesses, and the time to make sure that we are not making a mistake. It is a terrible choice to have to pick between a worker's safety and the abrogation of
the process. It is not right. It was not right in the beginning and it is not right here today.
A few minutes ago the Minister talked about parliamentary reform. I would love to see a reform that did not allow for this kind of abrogation process. I would like to see a reform that required a responsible Minister to sit through every hour of public hearings on a piece of legislation which the Minister proposed. I would like to see Ministers sit and listen to witnesses before Ministers make up their minds and nod their heads yes or no as to whether an amendment is acceptable. I do not think that second-hand information is sufficient.
I saw the Constitution of Canada, the fundamental law of this land, amended. I knew that many of the groups who put their hearts and souls into their submissions came to this city and appeared before the Committee on the Constitution in the belief that they could be and would be heard. Many Members heard them. But the decision-makers all too frequently did not. That is why I asked the Minister whose idea it was to have senior officials before our committee. In four and a half years that is the first time I have seen so many officials in Committee, and I compliment them for their capacity to listen and, ultimately, to have some influence on the Minister. One thing I have learned is that the Opposition very, very rarely has any influence on a Minister. All a Member of the Opposition can do is to try to persuade some other people who in turn might have some influence on the Minister. In this case that is influence through the bureaucratic mechanism.
There is a better way, and that is to force the Minister to be part of the process, to listen to witnesses, and to give individuals the opportunity to persuade a Minister directly.
I mentioned earlier today that I was somewhat angry at the Canadian Labour Congress. In standing here today I do not know whether to blame the people representing the Canadian Labour Congress. I know what they did, but I cannot be privy as to why they did it. People from the Canadian Labour Congress came before our committee and said: "Hold your nose and pass the Bill." We asked them how we could make the Bill a little bit better. We asked them what was right and what was wrong with the Bill. They said: "Hold your nose and pass the Bill". I think that is short-changing the one to two million members of the Congress, Mr. Speaker. I think the leadership of the Canadian Labour Congress knowingly or unknowingly short-changed its membership.
We do not get many opportunities in this Chamber to change the Canada Labour Code. The Leader of the Progre-sive Conservative Party said: "We like the thrust of these amendments. Yes, we will do our bit to make sure they get through before the end of this Parliament." In that atmosphere, perhaps the Canadian Labour Congress did not trust the NDP or the Liberals, but I think the Canadian Labour Congress had an obligation to share with committee members its thoughts on how to make Bill C-34 better. If this Bill is inadequate and if there are clauses that could have been included and they were not, the Canadian Labour Congress deserves some of the blame. That has worried me. In committee I have pointed it out to the Congress. But if the Congress is
June 27, 1984

indistinguishable from a political Party, then an atmosphere of suspicion is created which makes it more difficult to function together on behalf of the workers and on behalf of Canadian society. What part of the remarks made in this Chamber today or in committee will the Canadian Labour Congress and its affiliates choose to reprint in its newsletters sent out to the membership? Will there be a fair and accurate reflection of the debate and the reality of the process? There will probably not be because the Canadian Labour Congress has attached itself to a political Party in this Chamber.
When this process began, I was almost totally convinced that the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party had no interest in passing the Bill. I stand here today with the suspicion that that was really true some three weeks ago. The only reason the Bill was brought forward was to create an issue for a political campaign.
The filibustering of the New Democratic Party on other pieces of legislation jammed our calendar and kept us here one day until five o'clock in the morning. That provides evidence consistent with that belief. It was trying to create a climate in which to go into a federal general election, having missed the opportunity to provide a better health and safety climate rather than accomplishing it. That would have been the strongest electoral position for the New Democratic Party. Also it would have been a strong electoral position for the Liberal Party of Canada.
That was our concern right from the start. If that was its strategy, it got a hell of a surprise. No Party worked harder than our Party at making sure that the Bill was examined as well as it could be within the time frame allowed and that it was returned to the Chamber in an acceptable fashion or the best we could make it.
The tragedy is that the process could have been better. The Bill could have been better. We would have welcomed an opportunity to help. The Government let us down. For that, we should all be a little sad and not get carried away with joy. It is better to have tried as hard as we could than to have settled for second best, for a process which did not allow us to try.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments? On debate, the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen).


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be very brief. I understand that we are working under a schedule, but I have a few comments to make. I am, without any equivocation, very happy at the results we are seeking today. No one with experience in collective bargaining or the process in which we are engaged here-and there are some similarities in these processes-expects a perfect package. That is not what this process is all about. The idea is to make progress, hopefully substantial progress. By whatever variety of methods we have used to arrive at this point today, the Labour Code Bill before us is substantial progress for the working people of Canada.
Canada Labour Code
I congratulate all of those people who have been involved. I will not rise to the bait of my Conservative colleague who spoke a few minutes ago by responding to what he said. That is not the mood I want to create at this point.


An Hon. Member:: Congratulate the Minister.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I will congratulate the Minister of Labour and his two predecessors. I congratulate the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Regan), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet).
I congratulate the Canadian Labour Congress and the representatives of hundreds of democratic organizations of working people across the country who had, directly or indirectly, some input into this Bill. All their advice was not accepted, but that is not the way we work. That is not the way the labour movement works. That is not the way industrial relations works.
I am sad at the delay in the introduction of the Bill. We could have had more time to deal with it in committee and in the House. However, I do not know whether we would have achieved any more substantial progress than is to be found in the measures now included in Bill C-34. Time was provided for extensive consultations between the various Parties. Not only were the unions, the Government and other political Parties involved, but many employer groups were consulted over the last three or four years as well. It did not all happen in one, two or three days in committee. My colleagues in all Parties in the House know that, despite their protestations to the contrary. It has been a very worth-while exercise.
In relation to the process of collective bargaining, this process here today reminds me that the best contract agreements are achieved in the minutes preceding a strike deadline. Of course the House of Commons does not face a strike deadline, but it faces an election in the very near future. Strikes and elections have something in common. We see the end of a particular opportunity and no one wants to gamble on the outcome. When there is a chance of achieving significant progress, the question with which we are all faced is whether or not we want to gamble on blowing the whole thing. This is what any union has to face in a strike deadline situation. It has to decide whether it will settle for what is on the table or squeeze out a little more in the last few minutes.
My colleagues and I faced up to that option. We decided that it was not worth the risk. When it comes to an election, we are all in the lap of the gods that are known as the voters. They are unpredictable, just as it is unpredictable when a union or a company has to decide to strike or lock people out rather than settle for a compromise.
My purpose in being here is to obtain the best results, at the least cost, for the people I represent. That is the same job I had when I represented a union and it is the same job I have today in representing some 75,000 constituents in the riding of Kootenay West. My riding has a very large body of industrial workers as well as government employees, more provincial than federal. It has many working people as well as a mixed population of various different economic interests.

June 27, 1984
Canada Labour Code
If this matter poses a choice of either swallowing my pride or trying to play hero-whether it be a working class hero, a political hero or anything else-if I have to trade that off to obtain benefits for the people I am sworn to represent, I will choose to get results every time because my people are a lot more important than I am and that is my job.
I should like to refer to one problem in industrial relations. It is probably one of the most misunderstood human activities in the world. It is misunderstood by many trade unionists, managers and employers alike, and it is vastly misunderstood by the public at large. This is also reflected in the misunderstanding which is often evident in the halls of government. At one time I was a representative, both full-time and part-time, of the International Woodworkers of America. I was also president of the Nelson, Trail and District Labour Council for some three terms. Very often I took the opportunity to visit the high schools in my constituency and talk with students. Very few students, even in areas which were involved in mining and lumber, ever thought that after graduation they would have to work for wages for a living. This is one of the problems with television and the other media in this age of ours. Everyone thinks they will be professionals, semi-professionals or independent business people. I just ain't so. People also have misconceptions because they do not understand what their role in life will likely be and they thus do not feel the need to understand what industrial relations and unions are all about. Unions, industrial relations and personnel management are not people who spend 90 per cent of their time negotiating. Anyone in industrial relations spends 90 per cent of his or her working time on the grievance procedure, which is, in turn, the single most misunderstood instrument by managers and even active unionists. It is not essentially a method for finding fault. It is simply an attempt at an orderly mechanism to resolve possible errors in judgment. That is all it is. We require similar appeal methods both in the courts and in industrial relations.
What makes me happy about this Bill is that it begins-and it is not the first beginning as we have made attempts before- to recognize some of these realities. The process that we used has recognized some of the realities that exist in the industrialized world. It is not about perfection. We are not dealing with fairy tales. We are dealing with the lives of people. There are gains that have been made in terms of maternity leave. For women, we have made some but not great progress in recognizing the need for protection against sexual harassment in the workplace. As well, there are a great many measures that tend to build a more intelligent system for enforcing occupational health and safety in the workplace. I just mention that one area. There is substantial progress in that area in the Bill.
1 would like to pay particular tribute to my fellow Members of the NDP Task Force on Occupational Health and Safety, the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), and the Hon. Member for Kootenay-East Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) who, along with myself, spent three years going back and forth across the country, trying to get the maximum input into what we then
thought would be an early consideration of this subject in the House of Commons.
We do not feel that time was wasted, because we learned something. Even those of us who had some past experience in this area learned a great deal. We were able to communicate some of what we had learned to those in management and in the labour movement as well as to those in Government. As well, we recognized the fact that the Government was carrying on consultations with other people, mostly through its departmental officials, but some very personally, with a direct concern outside of the political sphere.
One thing that does concern me tonight is the final statement of the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). I do not know whether it was a promise or a threat. I will paraphrase what he said. His final phrase went something like this: "We look forward to looking at the legislation again in detail in the fall". I cannot foretell what the electorate will do in the forthcoming election, but I do know what a certain provincial government in British Columbia has done in the last few months by looking in detail at previous good, progressive labour legislation which used to exist on the statute books of that province. They are attempting to turn it upside down.
My concept of freedom and socialism has always been that it is "a responsible society governed by responsible men and women in a responsible manner." I have always rejected paternalism and I do not like paternalism today. That has caused me to disagree from time to time with some other people who call themselves socialists as well as many people of other political persuasions. I do not like a government that tries to do things for people. I prefer to have a government that accords to democratic institutions and communities in society the power to help themselves.
The Code before us helps to redistribute some of that power, and devolve some of that power and responsibility into the workplace, to the workers, managers, and employers, and set up a framework in which they can co-operate and work together, to try to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. That is what it is all about. That is why we should be here. I support the Bill. I thank everybody involved. I congratulate them once more for having participated in what was a healthy exercise and what will be, I hope, something that produces good results for the working people of Canada and all other Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guiibault):: Are there any questions or comments?


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Malone:: Filibuster!


Jean-Guy Dubois: -two minutes, my dear friend from the West!
June 27, 1984

Mr. Speaker, to be very brief and at the request of my colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), and my colleague for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne), who was most happy to hear my speech this afternoon, I would like to add a few words and say that, as far as we are concerned we have been very happy to receive the suggestions made both by labour and by management concerning Bill C-34. In this regard, I believe that there have been important discussions in recent months, not to say in recent years, about possible changes to the Canada Labour Code. When the representatives appeared before us, they indicated that they were in favour of the Bill generally, and as I said at the report stage, what we were asked by employer groups was to try to have a balanced Bill as they were themselves aware of the need for changes. I see the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) who agrees with me that this Bill is very important for the workers. He even told us that he was president of a union. He therefore speaks for the workers and probably because of that he was in touch with his colleague for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) and he asked him to support the Bill and to move amendments so that the Bill could be passed.
Mr. Speaker, a number of changes have been made, especially in Clause 28 and Clause 29, and 1 am referring to the matter of notice of technological change. I remember that both labour and management agreed on this point. More specifically, I recall that the Association of Canadian Bankers agreed with the 120-day notice so that workers could see what could be done in terms of these new developments.
Another important point, as the Minister of Labour pointed out, is that today, women represent nearly 50 per cent of the labour force, and that it was high time to amend the Canada Labour Code so as to take into consideration this category that is now on the labour market. That is why, when considering Clause 6 and Clause 59.2, we had to give a number of rights to workers that were both necessary and timely. In the Canada Labour Code, as the legislation stands now, employees with twelve months service have certain rights and are eligible for a certain number of weeks of leave, and now, the Government has introduced an amendment to reduce this period to six months.
Mr. Speaker, at this stage, however, since we want to adopt this Bill, I wish to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House who took part in the debate, listened to witnesses, took part in the debate on second reading, and after the second reading stage, heard many witnesses in rather quick and repetitive succession-in other words, we had a pretty busy agenda, and at the clause-by-clause stage, we finished at one o'clock in the morning last Thursday-I wish to thank both Opposition parties for their co-operation in helping us pass amendments. We on this side of the House accepted the amendments proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party also made its point.
Canada Labour Code
My hon. friend from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part) who is a former member of the FTQ-


An Hon. Member:: Still a member!


Jean-Guy Dubois: -who is still a member of the FTQ, agrees that this is a major piece of legislation. He was there too until one o'clock in the morning, but nevertheless, he is very happy that workers in his riding-he says it is a predominantly working class riding-will be able to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill. For that, he can thank the Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), who is Minister of Labour.
Mr. Speaker, I think we all have reason to be pleased with our work. I think people in the labour world will be happy with this Bill which, I hope we will be able to adopt within a few seconds.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Any questions or comments?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, in the thank yous it was not mentioned that in the committee we had special support staff. That special support staff took amendments that were impossible, a number of amendments, and distilled them so that they were in a very usable form. If the committee worked long, they must have worked ten times as long. To that particular staff of the committee, I am sure all Members would want to join me in expressing appreciation, along with the Minister's staff, who have sat in the gallery through this debate. It is appreciated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any further questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put my comments on the Bill before us in the context of my final speech in the House of Commons. I ask for your latitude, Sir, and the indulgence of the House for a few moments to allow me to express some thoughts that I feel deeply as I take leave of this great institution after 12 years.
I found it instructive to re-read the first speech I made here. I criticized then high government spending, called for a better deal for western Canada and urged greater Canadian attention to the global problems of security and development. Today in my final speech, I could repeat these themes with even greater urgency. Plus (a change, plus c'est la me me chose.
These 12 years have been the most informative, educational and challenging years of my life. For the rest of my life I will be grateful for the opportunity, and indeed the honour, of walking onto the floor of the House of Commons to represent my constituents. It is they who sent me here and it is they whom I must thank first. The people, first of Edmonton Strathcona and then of Edmonton South, placed their confidence in me during four elections. I have tried to help them as best I could.

June 27, 1984
Canada Labour Code
Of course, my political supporters and election campaigners were instrumental in bringing me forward. No politician ever had a stronger team. They stayed with me even when they did not always agree with me. My staff, both in Ottawa and in Edmonton, provided me with loyal assistance and hard work through the years. As well, I owe a debt of thanks to the officials in the House, the Parliamentary Library and Research Bureau, as well as to the messengers, pages and guards who ease the path of Members.
I take away with me friendships with Members on all sides of the House, friendships that I will always treasure. I have benefited especially from the counsel of members of my own Party and I thank my colleagues for their consideration of me and of the views I have expressed over the years. It has been a privilege to serve under three distinguished Leaders of our Party, the Hon. Robert Stanfield, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) who will become the next elected Prime Minister of Canada. As for my family, I cannot adequately express my appreciation for their devotion to me.
There is no practical way to sum up in a few minutes one's experiences with so many events in the past 12 years. However, there is one dominant thought that I want to share with my colleagues as I prepare to depart, and that is, the desire that I and so many people have today for collective security and economic and social justice in the world.
Science and technology have made today's world a dazzling place and offer the potential for every human being to enjoy a life of quantity and quality. But just as our age abounds with the promise of life, it is fraught with the threat of death. While science can transform the world into a more habitable and safer place for everyone, it has also unleashed the potential for global destruction.
The massive buildup of nuclear arsenals and conventional weapons could wipe out most of the earth's species including mankind in a matter of hours. Conflicts rage in all parts of the globe. Chaotic imbalances of food and population hold a quarter of the world hostage to hunger, disease and despair. The earth's population is burgeoning and its already strained resources recklessly squandered while the environment is precariously poised on the edge of disaster. Human rights are repressed on a massive scale; millions are forced to flee their homes. Can anyone doubt that our world today is in crisis?
Two issues above all others stand out in the struggle for peace in the world today: disarmament and development. The reduction of nuclear arms is at the centre of East-West relations. Accelerated economic development is the theme of North-South relations. There is not a human being today unaffected by the vast ramifications of these two global issues. Untold millions are directly caught up in the expanding militarism and deprivation of our time; intensified military competition in turn worsens economic pressures on both developed and developing countries. The deterioration in the world economy has exacerbated political instability and social crises in Third World countries which have a potential for setting off widening conflicts. How the two issues are resolved
will determine the prospects for true human security around the world.
We must seriously ask ourselves how much time is spent in Parliament on finding equitable solutions to these two paramount issues. Are we not so caught up with the daily pressures of parliament that we have no time for the wider view? This problem of priorities has troubled me for some time. I remind Hon. Members that stopping the arms race is not just a spiritual desire but is essential for world survival. Closing the rich-poor gap is no longer just a matter of striving for social justice but is essential to the continued development of the industrialized North. Some form of world law is necessary to resolve major international conflicts without violence and to retain the human and material resources needed to redress the global problems which confront us. Management of the planet by nations agreeing to co-operate in their common interest, thus ensuring that the promise of life prevails over the now suffocating threat of death, must be achieved.
All of this, Sir, is the work of the United Nations, the only global instrument we have to protect the global community. But today, critics maintain that the United Nations has not fulfilled its promise. The failure, however, lies not in the UN but in those nations that bypass the UN except when it suits their narrowly defined purposes. The Secretary General of the UN, Perez de Cuellar, has said that "the world is perilously near a new international anarchy," and has called for a recommitment by nations to the Charter as the UN prepares to observe its 40th anniversary in 1985.
What can-what must-Canada do now to strengthen the international machinery of the UN system? Drawing on our influence with Commonwealth countries, our increasing contacts with the Francophone countries of Africa and our evolving links with Asian and Latin American countries, Canada could stimulate the development of new coalitions of interest. The rigidities of bloc voting that have stultified the UN in recent years must give way to more universal expressions of concern and action on such pressing questions as peacekeeping, economic development assistance, global economic negotiations, human rights and environmental problems. Canada's success in developing consensus positions at the Law of the Sea Conference could be repeated in other areas. The UN is waiting for such a country to fill a leadership void in the crucial issues of disarmament and development, the two key issues which are at the root of the struggle for peace.
By putting a new focus on human rights, Canada could contribute to significant progress in these two fields. Human rights today are no longer confined to civil and political liberties, though much work remains to be done to guarantee rights in those areas. Human rights must also be protected in economic and social areas of life, and the UN has concentrated much of its activity here. Increasingly, human rights are associated with the right to physical security, and in an age of unending nuclear arms proliferation with a massive destructive capacity, the human rights of every person in the world are jeopardized today.
June 27, 1984

Canada, the country which pioneered the dispatching of peacekeeping forces to trouble spots, could now strengthen the machinery of peace by working to obtain an international inspection organization able to monitor disarmament using both satellites and on-sight inspection, by verifying arms agreements and by observing world military deployments. A true security system needs such an organization able to act with some authority.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in the field of development, Canada, working with like-minded countries, could stimulate greater concern about the straggering effects on the developing countries of the rising debt burden, monetary policies of the industrialized countries and trade barriers. The failure of the North to recognize that its own economic recovery depends on the ability of the growing markets of the South to buy has crippled global economic development. Millions face starvation with little hope for improvement. The pledge of Canada in the Throne Speech of December 7, 1983, to reach .5 per cent of GNP in official development assistance in 1985 and to reach .7 per cent in 1990 is an indication of human concern. However, the lesson of the 1970s was that development aid is but a fraction of what needs to be done to build the economies of the South.
The independent North-South Institute has laid down a program of action. Canada, through the UN, should work to expand the resources and quotas of the International Monetary Fund so that it provides greater help to the least developed. It should take an active part in efforts to initiate a process of basic reform of world trade and financial arrangements; contribute actively to negotiations within the GATT and preparatory discussions regarding a new trade round; play a leadership role in efforts to further integrate the developing countries into the GATT system; act against protectionist trade barriers; develop a new strategy of international development co-operation in harmony with the UN's international development strategy for the 1980s, and promote greater public understanding of the development process. The last point-public awareness-was considered so important by the parliamentary task force on North-South relations that its first recommendation called upon the Government to devote 1 per cent of official development assistance to encourage the awareness and involvement of Canadians in global concerns. Nongovernmental organizations working in the development and disarmament areas have become part of the landscape. Because they involve so many Canadians at the local level, they are capable, with more government support, of building a climate of public opinion which can be an enormous strength for a government to move ahead on UN strategies.
Canada with its history and geography, its freedom and democracy, its resources and technology, and its space and industry, is ideally placed to work for the conditions of peace. As I take my leave of this great institution, that is my wish and my prayer for us all. Au revoir and good luck to us all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Western Grain Stabilization Act The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert): Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question is on the following motion: Mr. Ouellet, seconded by Mrs. Hervieux-Payette, moved that Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Financial Administration Act, be now read the third time and do pass.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-33, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport) moved:: That Bill C-33, be amended by adding immediately after line 5 at page 15 the following:
"21. Notwithstanding anything in the Western Grain Stabilization Act, where, prior to the end of the year ending July 31, 1984, the Minister determines that stabilization payments will be made in respect of the year, interim stabilization payments to participants in respect of the year shall, on the requisition of the Minister, be paid out of the Stabilization Account, whether or not the year has ended, on account of the stabilization payments that will be made in respect of the year to participants, based on such information required to be considered at the end of the year in determining stabilization payments as is available to the Minister at the time he first determines that stabilization payments will be made in respect of the year." and by renumbering the subsequent clause accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, after a very long and interesting debate which dealt with matters of labour, I am pleased to be able to introduce measures which will have an important impact upon the lives of so many western Canadian grain farmers. I do not believe it will require a lot of explanation for Members in the Chamber as to the objectives and purposes of this Bill. It is a matter which has been widely discussed and entertained in various Question Periods, committee hearings and debates. However, I think it is important to underline the fact that the amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act will serve to improve what is already a very important and substantial piece of legislation for the protection and income security of western farmers. We will present amendments which will add to the protection and income security substantially by offering an alternative mechanism for the payment of pay-outs by which the Western Grain Stabilization Program can support the income position of the farmers.

June 27, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act
We all recognize that in the last two or three years western farmers have been squeezed between cash receipts and the expenses with which they are faced. With the depression which is apparent in some areas of the pricing of grains on the international market, it is very important that the Western Grain Stabilization Act be flexible and adaptable to respond to those conditions. One of the flaws which was recognized was that the formulas were not able to incorporate the additional sales and volume which occurred at the same time as expenses rose. Therefore, the fund was not able to respond effectively to the income requirements over the past two or three years. It is quite clear that amendments had to be made in order to ensure that the calculations arrived at would reflect the realities of both the international price situation and, at the same time, reflect the cost problems which western farmers face.
I would suggest to the House that the new pay-out mechanism is not a replacement of the existing legislation but is a secondary pay-out mechanism which will make the program more sensitive to cost and price variations. The present trigger mechanism, which is based upon the net cash flow over a five-year period, will be a continuing part of the Bill. But, the secondary pay-out mechanism, which relates more to the unit cost, will also be available. Therefore, we will be able to trigger pay-outs which will incorporate additional volume or inflationary tendencies.
I realize that there have been a number of recommendations, proposals and alternatives brought forward over a period of time, but in our judgment this will be the most effective way of ensuring that the Western Grain Stabilization Program is one which can be sensitive and flexible to the current needs of western farmers.
It is also important to note the significance of changing the time period in which calculations will be made from the calendar year to the crop year to ensure that there can be a more immediate pay-out. Rather than having to wait for nine or ten months until the end of the calendar year, calculations will now be made at the end of the crop year-on July 31. Therefore, we will be in a position to make the pay-out in the early fall, in October or November.
The amendment which relates to the participation of eligible spouses simply removes a discriminatory feature of the previous legislation. I think all Members of the House will welcome that amendment.
Finally, the major amendment allows participants to withdraw from the program once every ten years. That amendment protects both the stability of the fund and allows a certain amount of choice which can be exercised by the participants if they feel at some point in time that they no longer require protection.
Over all, the amendments are in the best interests of the western farmers. They will help farmers who are presently experiencing cash shortages. We hope this situation will not continue. We hope that through these amendments the stabilization fund can meet its basic requirements and obligations.
The amendment which we have just introduced at report stage is exceptional in that it introduces an interim payment for this year only. This will allow us to make a special response to the plight of the western Canadian farmers at this time. The interim payment, we feel, can be justified because there have been no pay-outs for the last several years.
I know Hon. Members have recommended during committee hearings a continual interim payment provision. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that while it sounds all right in theory, in practice it would be an impractical provision simply because of the inability to calculate the kind of pay-outs for which farmers might be eligible. It is subject to a number of factors which cannot be predicted with any high level of accuracy such as international prices, volumes, costs, all of which can vary from month to month. For us to be continually under the obligation or requirement to make interim payments would mean we would always be making payments without having an accurate prognosis of what the total payment would be after the crop year had closed. Therefore, I believe, Mr. Speaker, we can justify the interim payment amendment, but if we got into an annual interim payment, we would constantly be in a high level of uncertainty as to what those payments would be. It could happen, if you would allow the scenario, Mr. Speaker, at some point in time, under some pressure from Hon. Members opposite, the Conservative Party in particular and perhaps the NDP, which will be opposite for years to come, that we might make an interim payment and then find out, after the calculations were made, that the payment was too large and that the farmers would have to return the money or we would have to pass special legislation.
I would suggest that while in principle it sounds like a good idea, the practicality of it would not be particularly useful. Therefore, I would recommend to Hon. Members of the House that they accept our judgment that while an interim payment can be warranted this year, generally it would be prudent simply to allow the payments to occur after the crop year has closed. As I said earlier, the amendments which we have introduced as part of the Bill will allow those payments to be made in a reasonably short period of time after the close of the crop year.
The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the Western Grain Stabilization Fund is one which is appropriate to the circumstances and will be most helpful for western Canadian farmers in this period of real need. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that it does underline the ongoing and continuing commitment of this Government to improve the position of western farmers, to provide for a number of initiatives which demonstrate that we want to provide for a good and secure agricultural system in western Canada because we all recognize that it is certainly a major backbone not only of the western Canadian economy but of the entire Canadian economy. Through good legislation and good initiatives, we are able to provide those two things.
I know from some comments of Hon. Members on second reading, that they tend to overlook some of the accomplish-
June 27, 1984

ments which have been achieved by this House and by the Government over the past couple of years. I only point to the major payment of $651 million for the Crow benefit which is being provided-


Charles James Mayer: It is all going to the railways. How does that benefit the farmers?


Lloyd Axworthy: We have put in place a superb new system of arriving at decision-making in western Canada through the mechanism of the Western Grain Transportation Act. We have just put in $150 million to double the order of hopper cars. We have a new plan for branchline rehabilitation. There is a new $520 million program which will virtually complete the entire network of branchlines, which is something which western farmers have been anxious about. As well we have provided for a reserve fund to allow for new innovative measures and to respond-as I pointed out to the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) from time to time-to certain initiatives in the area of the Stettler subdivision and other important areas. I want to point to the measures which were introduced in the last Budget allowing the one time RRSP investment by farmers who are retiring in order to alleviate the problems of capital gains. These amendments we are bringing forward today is simply one step in a series of initiatives which this Government has taken in order to make sure western Canadian farmers are well served and that the western Canadian farm economy will be a prosperous one.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to take part in this debate and, in particular, to respond to the Minister. First of all, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that what we are about to pass this evening is an improvement over what we have had. I do not believe there is really much question about that. We certainly want to give the Government credit for doing this, but let me stop right there as far as handing out accolades is concerned, because I feel that that is as far as it goes. We on this side have been urging the Government to bring forward amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act for about a year and a half. We believe there are other ways we could have amended the Bill which would have made it more flexible. The Minister talks about flexible and adaptable amendments. We did not have enough time in committee. The Government mentioned this measure in its Throne Speech on December 7. Yet we did not receive it in committee until almost the end of May. We got it through committee as quickly as we could to make sure the Government could not blame us in the Opposition for not passing the Bill. If we had had it in committee in January or February, we certainly could have looked at other amendments. In fact, we did not even get a chance to look at the amendment of the Government until just now because the amendments we moved were ruled out of order at committee and we were told that the government amendment would also be out of order because of the royal prerogative. Therefore, in essence, we are looking at the government amendment for the first time right now.
Western Grain Stabili2ation Act
I would like to submit, Mr. Speaker, that if the Government had truly been serious about looking at the problems in the Western Grain Stabilization Act, it would have acted a lot more responsibly by ensuring that we had a chance to look at it in committee.
There are many ways to adjust the formula-to use the words of the Minister-to make it flexible and adaptable enough to meet the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to stabilize incomes of the western grain farmers by protecting them against sharp declines in the net cash flow. Statistically, we could have looked at a three-year moving average. There were all kinds of things we could have done in terms of studies which would not have affected the actuarial soundness of the Bill. There are all kinds of ways we could have considered to amend the Bill without jeopardizing the financial stability of the Bill. Yet, because of the way the Government managed its affairs, we did not have a chance to do that. I find that rather sad because we do have a very good Committee on Agriculture. As a rule we act in quite non-partisan ways and are generally interested in seeing that things happen in the best interests of Canadian agriculture. Yet we were not given an opportunity to do that. I feel that that is sad. We all suffer, ourselves, the Government and, above all, the people who have sent us here to serve them, because I do not think they are going to get the kinds of amendments they could have had if we had had more time in committee.
There are four amendments in the Bill to which the Minister referred. A very complicated triggering mechanism is going to be used. I could read it to the Minister and I am sure that if we had a chance to question him, he could not explain it to us because it is so complex. However, it will be a mechanism which is more responsive and will trigger some pay-outs in this crop year of something like $300 million and in the next crop year of something like $400 million. While we agree that the amendments which are there are going to be helpful in the immediate term as far as putting cash into the producers' pockets is concerned, I am not so sure it is the right triggering mechanism. I am sure we could have come up with a better one had we had more chance at committee. The Minister said that "our" judgment-obviously, he means that of the Government, the Treasury benches-is that this is the most effective amendment. How does he know that? Surely the committee could have determined which would have been the most effective amendments to put forward. At least we would have had a better opportunity to look at some of the other proposals which came forward.
The problem is being changed to a crop year basis which is, to my mind, a mixed blessing. If you are to have an effective stabilization program the pay-out should be made as quickly as possible after a crop loss. In this country we operate around the growing season. If you harvest a poor crop in the fall of
1984,	you will need some help to get your crop in the ground next year. Ideally you should have some money in your hands from this program when you put in your crop in the spring of
1985.	Yet moving to a crop year eliminates that possibility.

June 27, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act
It is fine to say that this will make the program more responsive, but if the Minister understood anything about farming he would not be saying the things he did about this amendment. If that is the extent of the Minister's knowledge of western agriculture, then I fear for his new leader, particularly if this Minister is his chief lieutenant in western Canada. He has demonstrated tonight that he knows very little about western agriculture.
The Minister went on to talk about how in theory an interim payment sounds fine but in actual practice it does not work. To be polite, that is a bunch of nonsense. The Government has made two interim payments under the present legislation, and the amendment we moved in committee simply suggested that the Minister may authorize an interim payment. It did not compel the Government to do so. The Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) made a very good point in committee when he said we do not want to tie the hands of future governments. This amendment will only allow an interim payment for the present crop year.
What is wrong with an amendment which states that the Minister may authorize an interim payment? He does not have to do it on a regular basis but the authorization is there if it looks like there is going to be a substantial payment and an interim payment would benefit the producer. Surely that should be the result of properly designed legislation. Then we would not get into this nonsensical scenario where every time we require a pay-out we have to go through this procedure so the producers will have some money in their hands.
This amendment should have been in the House probably three or four months ago. Then producers could have had the benefit of the money in the fund. By the way, there was $864 million in this fund at the end of December, 1983. We did not hold it up. Even the NDP was with us on this one, thank goodness. They get their heads out of the sand once in a while and see the things that should be done for farmers. Everyone on this side was in favour and it should have been done a lot sooner.
Also, I urge the Government, when it makes an interim payment, to make it as large as it can. Members opposite have talked about a 50 per cent or 60 per cent interim payment, but I see nothing wrong with an interim payment of 75 per cent or 80 per cent. That is the basis on which the Canadian Wheat Board establishes initial prices.
In addition, the Government talks about agricultural initiatives. This Government has done absolutely nothing for agriculture in this session. There was one minor Bill which doubled the cash advances on western grain, and dealt with increases in farm credit rates. A motion from this side by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) to reduce the tax on-farm-fuels went to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for study. A motion by the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) concerning the concept of agribonds went to that same committee. When this Government talks about what it has done for Canadian agriculture, I am sure farmers all across the country know what a hollow ring that has to it.
We are pleased to do what we can to get this Bill through this evening so that western farmers at least have the benefit of a big pile of cash the Government has been sitting on for far too long.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the report stage of a Bill which amends the Western Grain Stabilization Act to provide a pay-out of some $250 million to $300 million to western farmers as soon as possible. The Minister mentioned that the Government decided to opt for a one-time interim payment provision. The Bill also contains changes in the formula from five years to three years, and adds to what is already a fairly complex formula something that will be known as "the per unit net cash outflow" component. There has also been a change in the treatment of spouses. Where both husband and wife are involved in the farming operation, both will be permitted to participate in grain levies and any pay-outs that might accrue. There is a new provision which will permit participants in the program to withdraw every ten years. Because the Bill came into effect in 1976, this means that in 1986, 1996 and every ten years thereafter the producer can opt out of the program.
In 1976 our Party raised the issue of some basic shortcomings in this program. We reiterated some of them in committee. I think it is fairly well understood by farmers that it is a very inadequate means of guaranteeing farmers' income, but that was never the intention of the Bill in the first place. It had very little to do with that, but everything to do with guaranteeing incomes to the Prairie region of Canada.
In its application the Bill has some very real inequities. It is available to people who want to opt into the program, and approximately 70 per cent or 75 per cent of farmers have decided to participate. I submit the inequity occurs when wheat and barley growers in parts of Canada other than the Wheat Board region find themselves covered by the general Agricultural Stabilization Act and have indeed received payments under that Act which were not available to farmers in the Wheat Board region who decided not to participate in the Western Grain Stabilization Act. There is some built-in discrimination which creates a wall around a certain region or a province. Because producers decide to opt out of a program, they are forever after ineligible as well for the programs financed nationally.
There is also a real inequity in the financing of the two programs. The Agricultural Stabilization Act is financed entirely by tax dollars, whereas the Western Grain Stabilization Act is financed presumably one-third by producer levy and two-thirds by the Government. One of the myths that was shattered concerned this whole funding business, that it should always be and will always be on a three to one basis. That myth was shattered in committee when we started hearing from expert witnesses and began looking at the record. We know that close to $1 billion has been accumulated in the fund, taking into account producer pay-outs and the Government's share. Since its inception in 1976 there have been two payouts. Something like $122 million was paid out in 1977 and an additional $293 million was paid out in 1978. We are expect-
June 27, 1984

ing a pay-out in the order of $250 million to $300 million with this one. Farmers have participated in this particular program with the understanding and expectation that for every dollar they contributed some day in the future when they get into trouble they would be able to recoup $3.
We looked at the expert testimony and went through some of the numbers which had been generated by an economist from the Department of Agriculture in Manitoba. We went back 18 years using real data. Using the old five-year formula we found that for the 6 per cent collected of producer and federal Government money together, the potential pay-out over the full 18 years would have been 2.84 per cent. Not quite half of the moneys collected as premiums would be paid out in a period of 18 years. That pay-out procedure improves only slightly with the new improved formula which this Bill is attempting to introduce. Using the same data of the last 18 years and assuming contributions of one-third by the producer and two-thirds by the federal Government for a total input of 6 per cent, the total pay-out would be 4 per cent. The expectation among producers was that for every dollar put in they would eventually collect $3. However, the reality is that even with the new improved formula, for every dollar put in they are only able to collect $2.
The formula and calculation of the premium has been done on an extremely conservative basis. It is not designed to provide the kind of income protection that farmers had expected. The pay-out is always going to be much less than the expectation. For that reason we were a bit unhappy that major changes to the Bill had not resulted from a full review of the Act. It has been in effect for eight years and the past fall and winter would have been an excellent time to have done a complete review. We could have looked at the obvious shortcomings in the Bill, turned it over to the committee, and allowed it to come up with a much more comprehensive program which would have gone some way toward providing some income insurance protection to farmers. The fund which has been built up could have been used in a way which would provide real dollars in farmers' pockets when their income is down, due to low prices or bad markets. I am really sorry that that did not happen. However, since we are up against a time limit at this stage, we are prepared to allow the Government to put the amendments forward to trigger a pay-out so that this money will get into farmers' hands before the next election.


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the House tonight on this very important legislation. I must begin by expressing the disappointment of my own constituents which I have heard reiterated over and over again since my entry into politics some 14 months ago. When I began to campaign about 14 months ago, one of the things of which I became immediately aware was how bitter the farmers in my constituency were about the inadequacies of the Western Grain Stabilization Act. By and large the farmers I talked to during the course of this time were of one mind. They said two things. They said
Western Grain Stabilization Act that this program had failed to do what it purported to do; it had failed to stabilize the industry. They had very little difficulty convincing me of that because the bankruptcy figures speak tragically for themselves. As you know, they have risen to near record levels year by year since 1979.
They also told me that most of them would prefer to be permitted to leave the program if they were able to recover the money which they themselves had invested. Of course, they were denied that opportunity. Although the amendments will now permit them to leave on the tenth anniversary of the program, they will, of course, have to leave without recovering the contributions which they made. By and large, the western Canadian farmers which I am acquainted with have been exceedingly disappointed by this legislation.
We now have before us amendments which come far too late and do too little. However, in some ways it is like the saying that a half a loaf is better than none. While we on this side of the House are disappointed that the Government failed to take the opportunity which was before it to perfect this legislation so that it would do what it purported to do, we are in a position where we must support the legislation if only because it is a step in the right direction. I would hope that we will be given the opportunity to again amend this legislation in the not too distant future. We hope to be able to take the opportunity to reform it in such a way as to make it truly responsive to the needs of western Canadian agriculture with sufficient flexibility to meet the year by year needs of cash starved Canadian grain farmers.
Farmers are now saying to me, with obvious justification, that the Government has betrayed them in that they are receiving only what they themselves contributed. As you know, western Canadian grain farmers have contributed almost exactly the amount of money which will now be involved in the interim payment to be made in July and the final payment to be made later in the autumn. Those farmers ask what has happened to the Government's contribution. They are critical of the amendments, with just cause.
However, thanks to the amendments and to the pressure which has been put on the Government by the Conservative opposition and the organizations which represent farmers across the country, the Bill is better now than when it was introduced into the House some time ago. There will at least be a very necessary interim payment toward the end of July. That interim payment is of the utmost importance. Farmers desperately need to augment their cash flow during the first few months of the year. That has always been a problem with western Canadian agriculture. There is a reasonable amount of cash flow in the autumn of the year at harvest time, but there is a serious shortage of funds in the spring of the year.
We have hoped that our amendments would be accepted. Those amendments would have provided for an interim payment in each and every year in which there was to be a pay-out. Unfortunately, the Government has seen fit to deal with this year only on an ad hoc basis. We are grateful for the concessions which the Government has made, but we regret that it failed to take the opportunity to redress a serious

June 27, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act grievance which has existed. I am also disappointed, as are my colleagues, that the Government failed to take the opportunity to make the changes retroactive. Had the Government made the proposed changes retroactive to the 1982-83 crop year, we could have generated at least another $100 million into the western Canadian grain economy. That would have assisted those farmers very substantially. Many of those farmers are very young and are on the verge of bankruptcy.
The situation in agriculture in western Canada today is very serious. I speaker of western Canada because I know it best. There are many young farmers who will not survive this fall unless we have an exceptionally good crop. If it is only an average crop, many of those farmers will tragically be forced into bankruptcy. They request us to provide them with whatever assistance is available because they need it. In fact, they need a real stabilization program.
One of the characteristics of the agricultural economy is that it tends to have serious ups and downs. As legislators, we must take steps to even out those returns in such a way that there can be some stability in the industry. We will need those farmers and their productivity in the future. If we fail them in their moment of need and they are forced off the land because of the current crisis, then they will not be producing at a time when Canada and the western world needs their food products.
What is needed is a genuine stabilization program, one which will address itself to the price that farmers receive for their product, and one which will address itself to the cost of their production. Unfortunately, the present program has failed to fulfil either of those two objectives. It has not dealt adequately with the price that the farmer receives for his product each year, and has not taken into consideration all of his costs of production. Because of the increased volume which has affected the value of the over-all crop and has ignored the question of the cost of production, there has been an inadequate response on the part of this program to the needs of western Canadian agriculture.
While the Government has moved in the right direction, unfortunately, as the Government has done so often, it has taken only half a step. I am not sure if this is because it is excessively cautious or that it lacks concern. It has taken a step in the right direction but it has failed to respond in the manner in which western Canadian farmers have asked.
We need a program which is more flexible. I submit that a program which use three-year averages rather than five-year averages would be more flexible and would meet the needs of the western Canadian agriculture better than it now does. We need a program in which there is ample opportunity, whenever the need is there, to introduce the interim payment rather than deal with it in an ad hoc manner. I cannot help but regret that this program did not take those necessary steps forward. I cannot help but regret that this program did not take into account the poor crop years of 1982 and 1983.
What we have before us is something which is better than nothing. Constituents have said to me that we in the Opposition should oppose this legislation because of its inadequacy. They wanted us to vote against it. They wanted us to fight it every step of the way. I understand the frustration of those farmers, but what they are asking us to do is not practical, because this Bill is better than nothing. Unfortunately, it is not nearly enough. It may well be, and in fact appears to be, that we will have to wait until the next election and the next Conservative Government in order to get the kind of legislation which western Canadian farmers so desperately need.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words about this Bill, which will be given third reading tonight and become law at the end of this Session of Parliament. It has taken a long time. We on this side have been pressing for amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Bill for the last two or three years. We realize that the Bill itself is not an effective means of stabilizing the income of western farmers.
I was interested in the Minister's remarks this evening. His speech was rather good until the end when he began setting forth the various government programs which he indicated had been helpful to the farmers of western Canada. It sounded to me as though he was making a speech in anticipation of an election which we expect to come very shortly. However, the Minister did not tell the people of Canada that the programs he was talking about are programs which are funded with taxpayers' money, not government money. The $250 million or $300 million that will be paid out under this Bill will be welcome in western Canada. However, I suggest that it will not do the job.


An Hon. Member:: It is a great government.


Douglas Charles Neil: The Hon. Member across the way says that it is a great government. We will see after the next election whether the public feels that you have a great government. I doubt very much that they will.
As I said before I was interrupted, that $300 million will be welcome in western Canada. I repeat that it will not do the job because it will be an average of approximately $2,500 to each producer. That money will come out of a fund that is close to $1 billion. The $300 million is simply a return of the contributions that the farmers have made over the years and does not give them a return of interest on their money.
For the last several years, as I travelled throughout my constituency, almost without exception the farmers asked me why they cannot opt out of this program. I told them that they are locked in. I am pleased to see that there is an amendment which provides for a ten-year opting out clause. It will be interesting to see what effect this will have on the producers. Unless there are more changes to this Bill I suspect that there will be an increasing number of producers opting out of this program.
Farmers in western Canada are in serious financial difficulty. Their input costs have been rising; their cost of fuel under this Government has more than doubled. The cost of fertilizer has been rising as a result of the National Energy Program.
June 27, 1984

Furthermore, machinery prices have doubled and tripled and interest rates continue to go up to the extent that many farmers are finding it almost impossible to meet the interest payments on the loans they have with the banks or the Farm Credit Corporation.
It is interesting to note that recently a farmer came to my office to talk about his Farm Credit Corporation loan. He was unable to meet his payments last year and, lo and behold, a few weeks ago a representative from the Farm Credit Corporation came to him and said, "You are in arrears. We want to take a statement of your assets because we are considering taking foreclosure action." This man was worried and told me that he had put in his crop and that if it rains, and it has since, he will have a reasonably good crop and will hopefully be able to meet his commitments. He wanted to know how fast they could take his farm. I said, "First, the legal procedure in foreclosing is a fairly lengthy process". I also told him that there will be a payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Program. While it will not be very large, there is an election in the offing and I also suspect that just prior to the election there will be an interim payment by the Wheat Board. I told this farmer that if he added those two payments he would probably be able to pay a substantial amount of the arrears to the Farm Credit Corporation and they will get off his back. I certainly expect that prior to the election there will be an interim payment and another payment on account of the final payment on the grain sales.
The problems faced by farmers also become the problems of the small businessman in the communities, such as the implement dealer, the fuel dealer and the fertilizer dealer. If the farmer does not have the money and is unable to get money to pay his operating expenses, the small businessman is also affected. You will find bankruptcies occurring among small business people.
The Minister talked about this Bill as one to stabilize farm income or to help the farmer. But really it is not such a Bill. The Bill is simply one to put money into the economy of western Canada without regard for the individual producer. The Minister said that the amendments will make this Bill sensitive and flexible. It will make some changes, but it will not make it a Bill satisfactory to the farmers of western Canada. When the original Bill was before the House and before the committee we on this side of the House told the then Minister that the plan would not work in a satisfactory manner. First we said it was a global plan and anyone who has any knowledge of agriculture in western Canada knows that year in and year out the whole of the Canadian Wheat Board area does not have a good crop. You have areas, sometimes large, where the crop is poor. We have an area in northeast Saskatchewan today where there has not been a crop for three years, and the Western Grain Stabilization program has not helped the farmers in that area. Even on a regional basis, Mr. Speaker, it would not serve the purpose. Some of us who served on the committee in 1973-74 recalled that we had participated in the old Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and know
Western Grain Stabilization Act
it did not function. If Members on the other side or the Minister would refer to the committee hearings, they would note that we on this side of the House made several proposals whereby the Bill could be made to function on an individual basis without any particular complications. But the then Minister, Mr. Otto Lang, would not listen to us. He said in the debates and in the committee: "We will pay out in the spring of the year." That money has never been paid out in the spring. He said it was important that the farmers have the money in the spring so they could put in their crops. That has not happened. We gave him a solution, but he did not listen to us.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are signalling to me that my time has just about run out. In closing, let me say that it is vital that the Bill itself, the concept of grain stabilization, agriculture stabilization, should be examined and examined in detail with the provinces. I would suggest that after the next election when there is a new Progressive Conservative Government that that examination and those changes will take place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order having to do with House business for tomorrow. I would like to indicate that the order of business for tomorrow will be as follows: Bill C-32, C-43, and C-30. If there is to be a change in the order, I will make sure to consult with my colleagues, the House Leaders, and that the House is informed on time before eleven o'clock.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of consultation from time to time about the order of the legislative agenda as presented by the Government. I appreciate the context in which the Government House Leader has spoken and that he will do me the courtesy, as I will him, with respect to discussing any possible change in the order. I appreciate his advice as to the present intention of the Government. If there is any change, we will have consultations and be able to agree on any alteration at the beginning of tomorrow's sitting.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture; and the amendment (Mr. Axworthy).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: For debate, the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger).

June 27, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, the Crees of the Peace Hills will wonder about your pronunciation, but many people have trouble with the name of my riding.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I am pleased to join in the debate on the Western Grain Stabilization Act. As farmers contemplate the crop year-they have just planted their crops incidentally-the indications are that it is going to be another tough year. The only opportunities for them seem to lie in the possibility of one country or another in the world having a crop failure which would boost the prices of grains. That is a tragic situation that farmers have to hope for in order to get more farm income.
At one time many farms were much smaller than they are today. At one time the farmer as he was farming, producing a crop and selling it, could anticipate a reasonable profit, and along with it he had the opportunity to put some of that money into a savings account, now called a stabilization account. In those days there were no such things as stabilization or crop insurance. The farmer had to put aside part of his income to make sure that if he suffered adverse weather conditions, whether it was drought or too much rain, he had the capacity to deal with it. But now in modern times when farm equipment has become very expensive the price for produce versus the cost of putting the grain in the ground has forced farmers to go to bigger farms, to produce higher volumes in order to survive, because volume is the only basis upon which they can continue the farm and buy equipment. We are now as governments, both provincial and federal, forced to assist in the setting up of stabilization accounts. This was not the case in the past. Farmers stabilized their own income. They were able to do that.
Now as farmers contemplate their abilities, they have only three bases upon which to continue to farm. They can hope that prices for their produce will increase enabling them to continue to farm. First, they have to get the price of their produce up or the cost to produce down. Because we sell on the international market it is difficult to get the price up. For some commodities that are controlled by supply management boards that is a situation that can be altered domestically, but most of our produce, particularly western grain, is sold on the international market and that is not the case. There is not a lot of room for farmers to get the price for their produce up.
The other option of getting the cost down is one where the Government can effect the situation. We have talked about things on this side, such as interest rate reduction, agri-bonds and farm fuel decreases, and I could go on to mention other bases upon which we can get the cost down.
Then there are the stabilization programs. This is one of them and there are others. We have talked about a Bill which the Government just introduced for a beef stabilization program where there will be three participants. Another way is for more international agreements under which we would guarantee our markets into the future. We could have something like the two-price wheat agreement where the domestic
market pays more for the consumption of domestic food in order to assist farmers in the export of their produce. We are now faced with one of those programs, the Western Grain Stabilization Program. We are attempting to make things better for the farmers of Western Canada.
As my colleagues have said, this is not an individual plan. It was intended to be a plan to stabilize prairie income, most of which is derived from the farming community, particularly in Saskatchewan. It is also a very important part of the Alberta and Manitoba economies. The rural communities in which many of us grew up are changing rapidly. The main reason for that is that farmers are no longer able to buy most of their necessities in small communities. The community dealers cannot compete with large machinery dealers and large hardware stores for the types of goods farmers require. As a result, in many parts of the Prairies small communities are having great difficulty surviving.
This Bill was intended to assist in that survival. It was to put money in the hands of farmers at a time when the total economy of the Prairies was in a recession. While we had some difficulty with the Act, it was passed in 1976. It worked reasonably well until factors such as volume of grain exported, inflation, interest rates and so forth, changed in the late seventies and early eighties. The Bill was no longer functioning properly, so amendments were brought forth. We welcomed those amendments.
Also, as my colleagues have indicated, across the Prairies it was seen as the only piece of legislation or the only fund of money upon which farmers could get their hands to put their crops in the ground and survive this year. The indications from the Canadian Wheat Board were that the initial price would be lower, not higher. Of course farmers had to have crops before they could receive advance payments. Their only opportunity to put crops in the ground this year, other than by borrowing money on the backs of fertilizer and fuel dealers, was the Western Grain Stabilization Fund. However, we did not get the Bill through in time. Because of that I assume many accounts are being carried by small businesses in western Canadian communities today. That is the only reason many grain farmers are still in production.
This interim payment is very welcome across western Canada. This is why I found it difficult to understand why the Government, when it brought in an amendment allowing an interim payment this year, restricted the interim payment to only this year. I know the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board said that farmers need money in the fall just as they do in the spring. Anyone in the House who farms knows that one's opportunity for cash is much greater when a crop has been harvested than when it is planted. Planting is the most expensive of the farming processes. Therefore an interim payment, if it is to be made, should be made in time for farmers to pay their planting bills. Not much interest would be involved in order to obtain an interim payment in July.
June 27, 1984

I certainly agree with the other amendments, but the point I am making is that the interim payment should not be restricted to this year. It ought to be available in future years if there is to be a payment under this plan. That is a serious deficiency. At a time when we have opened up this Act, we should not close it and leave it closed in this fashion. I ask the Government to reconsider this. I know it is too late at this stage, and I think that is a failure. How could the Minister stand to speak on the Bill and brag about some of the other things he is doing with taxpayers' money in western Canada, such as the Crow Bill? I hope he campaigns on that in the next election in western Canada. We will see what happens.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, you may or
may not know that a west wind is blowing and that there is a strong odour of an election in the air. Jimmy Carter has risen again. The Government has a new set of twisted mirrors with which to persuade farmers that their own money is a gift from Lloyd's of Winnipeg and the keeper of the western gate to Gritsville. The boom and bust cycle has become bust, bust, bust, election year boom; bust, bust, bust, election year boom. This is what Lloyd's of Winnipeg is offering farmers with their own money.
Confidence has gone. Unfortunately-and I could dwell on it for some time-if farmers had a real and honest free choice to get back the money invested in the Western Grain Stabilization Fund and get out, the majority would do so today. It is not the concept of the Western Grain Stabilization Fund which is wrong, but confidence has been destroyed. Farmers no longer believe in the program. Moreover and equally dangerous, that destroyed confidence or lack of confidence is spilling over into any other concept of stabilization. If we ask farmers and ranchers in my riding about whether or not they want a red meat stabilization plan, they will say that they do not want it. Whether intellectually or academically a good and workable idea, it is set aside. The response of those people is to say: "If it is like the Western Grain Stabilization Fund, I want no part of it".
We used to have stabilization funds in the 1930s, and beyond. They were called chickens, pigs, milk cows, gardens, Saskatoon berries and the muscle power of animals and humans. Once farms were paid for, farms with low capital costs and subject to low interest rates, a farmer could not be starved off the land. He could feed and look after his family. Today input costs are so high that they can no longer afford crop losses. Persons farming today who have virtually paid for everything can be destroyed by two crop losses.
At the present time the Prairies of northeastern Saskatchewan have faced crop failure. Major parts of Manitoba are into their third year of crop failure. We see farmers going bankrupt, not at the Prairies average which is already too high, but at regional averages which are excessive to the extreme. As long as the pay-out is based upon the whole area of the Canadian Wheat Board it will be merely a stabilization of the machinery manufacturing businesses and fertilizer plants of central Canada.
Western Grain Stabilization Act
These people propel a certain amount of business into the Prairies year after year. Now they have a guarantee. If the whole Prairies went broke, machinery dealers and manufacturers would be able to market in the Prairies. That is really what the plan is all about, unfortunately. Every small region of the Prairies at one time or another experiences crop failure. It shifts around from one region to another. Some years the Peace River country of Alberta is frozen over. This year northeastern Saskatchewan will be rained out. Surely they should be able to stabilize their farms, not the manufacturing industry of some other region of Canada.
The Government is gasping for breath at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute before the election call. Well after seeding has been completed, it comes along and tells farmers that it will give them back their own money which they paid into the fund. The truth of the matter is that had farmers invested their money when the fund was initially conceived, even at bank interest rates, they would have been about $8,000 better off than by investing in the fund.
As the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) just mentioned, when a farmer plants seed in the ground he cannot go to the bank and ask for a loan to carry him over on the basis of there being seed in the good earth. But when there is a 50 or 60-bushel crop lying in swath, the farmer can make projections because the predictability of cash is much better than it was in the spring of the year. They need the money in the spring. As the Minister said, they have expenses in the fall as well, but they are much closer to predicting what their income might be.
Last weekend I met with a farmer who told me that he argued in favour of the Liberal Government when this program was initiated. He said: "I argued with my neighbours that any time that I as a farmer could put up $1 and the Government would put up $2, that was a deal I could not afford to pass up." He went on to state: "Boy, was I dead wrong. I feel damn cheated." He did go on to say some other words. Because I want to continue my speech for some time, I will not put them into Hansard.
This Government has chosen to stabilize the farmer when he is broke. It is not the notion of what grain stabilization is about at all. We recognize that there are ups and downs in the income of farm people. They waited until the very last breath of farmers and decided at that point to come in with stabilization. Coming in then basically means that we continue the path of bankruptcy for all too many farmers.
The present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has been Minister for 12 years. In that time there have been five major pieces of agricultural legislation. That is a record that damns this Government in terms of its agriculture policy. There is no industry in the world as important as agriculture. Every year 70 million persons suffer permanent and irreversible brain damage from the lack of protein; four-fifths of this world suffers from malnutrition and 40,000 children under the age of five die of starvation. There is no commodity in the world as

June 27, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act
important as food. There are only two sources of food. One is soil and the other is water. Unfortunately, and I do not blame only the Liberals who govern us, against that devastating background, there is no nation in the world that places fish, forestry or food among its highest priorities for government spending. The whole world needs to turn itself around to recognize that we live by the good earth. If we do not put some research, marketing, development and skills back into the production of foods, we will continue as we have in the past, living in a world where four-fifths of our people suffer from malnutrition.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) took the occasion this evening to tell us that the West should be pretty happy because we have this great thing he calls the new Crow rate. We got exactly what we should have expected. We have Senator Ian Sinclair in the other place. He is now part of this great new Government team. We have a new Leader of the Liberal Party. He did not dare resign his directorship of CP. A good constituent, of mine, the Hon. Jack Horner, the former Chairman of CNR, is now the western grain car co-ordinator. If I was a farmer against that background I would hightail it like a jack-rabbit.
It is those people who gave us exactly what we should expect, a Crow rate that allows the railway companies to renege on about $2 billion which they said they would spend. They are not going to spend that because somehow it is not in the interest of the railway. This country is not about railways. It is about people who produce, whether it is forestry, fish or agriculture. When we have people like Sinclair, Turner and Horner looking after farmers, it is analogous to sending a tomcat to guard mice. They will look after the railways every time.
We have to recognize that we face a $2 billion shortfall. That is against the background of a 140 per cent increase in farm production in the last decade. Statistics Canada predicts another 110 per cent increase by the end of the year 1986. We tax fuels used by the farmers. We have front-end taxes on natural gas which makes fertilizer prices too high. Land prices are escalating far too high. We have machinery costs that cannot be justified. Interest rates are too high. They are exorbitant, and there is no means of resolving the situation. There is a failure in marketing and research in terms of farm production and agricultural needs. Against that background, there was one committee meeting at which the Liberals did not show up. At the other meeting, one Liberal Member showed up and he walked out.
The Government left this measure until the second last day before the recess. It brings in this Bill at the last second, 11 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds. It tries to tell the farmers it is going to give them some gift from Lloyds of Winnipeg at the last moment with the farmers' own money.
I know this is a good speech, Mr. Speaker, but you do not have to come down here. I will keep going if I can do so. No? If that is the signal, I will resume my seat. Thank you very much.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I sat through virtually every committee meeting when this Bill was being considered. From day one, its primary purpose was not to come to the aid of the farmer. Its primary purpose, and it is so stated in the Bill and in the Minister's presentation, and in its support by Government, was to make sure that there was a total income in the West, including all industries and not just agriculture, so as to maintain a healthy western economy. As a result, the provisions of this Bill are not properly triggered at the time when farm income declines to the point perceived by farmers are the one described by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) a few moments ago. It was perceived by the farmers as their Bill. It was utterly and totally impossible to indicate to the public at large that this was not to be triggered by farm needs, but rather the total economic needs of the total western area. The farmer now realizes that he was utterly and totally misled by the propaganda associated with the presentation of that Bill.
We now find ourselves considering an amendment which is vital to the farm industry of western Canada. It is high time that it was here. This Bill was needed when people were planting crops so there would be an attraction to plant, and encouragement for farmers and creditors alike to ensure a healthy plant and healthy agriculture in western Canada.
This is the first recognition of the weakness of the original Bill that we are amending, the first recognition of its weakness as it is being presented for amendment today. I do not know how farmers in Canada can ever be bewitched again into a state of ignorance of their own affairs and the legislation which was supposed to attack the problems they face.
We have gone through a period of time when costs of production have skyrocketed. Price stabilization, whether it be for western grains or other items, is something which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has refused to recognize. He has preached a cheap food policy for Canada. As he preached that, net farm income has gone down and costs have gone up. There have been all kinds of presentations to this House; to the Minister, to the Cabinet and to Opposition Parties, pleading for recognition of the problem of the red meat industry and the horticulture industry. They suggest that the policy of this Government has not been adequate to look after the farmers' needs while the Cabinet and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) preach that we shall have cheap food for Canada. The birds are just coming home to roost by this Bill.
What the Opposition Parties said when it was in the process of consideration by the Committee in the House has now been admitted by the Government. It was inadequate the day it was drafted. It was not subject to amendment like most government Bills. Government Members had all the brains. They bewitched the farmers and passed the Bill as it was when amendments had been offered to try to have payment triggered by farm needs rather than total economic needs. That, of course, was a reversal of the situation.
June 27, 1984

If one follows the economic charts of Canada through history, one sees that when the farm industry is prosperous, so is the rest of Canada. There are a few exceptions to that rule, being times when the peaks do not entirely coincide, but there are no times when the impact of farm prosperity is not reflected into the curve of prosperity for all of Canada. The decline of the agricultural economy may precede the decline of the Canadian economy, but then one wonders whether or not the agricultural economy has dragged the entire economy down.
Here we are considering this Bill after hearing a snide remark made by a Member on your right, Mr. Speaker, a remark which was intended to be deceptive after mention was made of the 18 cents. How many times must one tell those who will not hear-I suppose one can tell them in perpetuity and they will still not hear-that the 18 cents did not apply to agriculture, to fishing or to the heating of homes. Remarks such as that do not do the dignity of this House very much justice.
I regret very much that, as of now, we have not properly addressed at least a few of the agricultural problems. I do not have to name those problems because the Minister of Agriculture himself receivd a telex urging a response to the request of the Canadian Horticultural Council. This response was not mentioned as the business for tomorrow, nor was it promised as the business for Friday. I must say that this would be a default in the responsibility of any Government. This is a position about which we have known for weeks and for which no correcting legislation has been presented to us as of yet.
As was mentioned earlier, it seems as though the ghost of Jimmie Gardiner has finally injected his thinking into the policy of a Government that is just about to attack the public with an election campaign. The same tactics are being applied, but this time the farmers will not have their eyes shut because there have been too many examples of neglect and too few examples of progressive, constructive, promotional legislation for the welfare of agriculture in all its spheres. This is just a hypocritical example of the historic neglect which has been going on for too many years.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be afforded the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill tonight because my constituency is largely agricultural. There are some excellent tourist areas such as Lake Louise, Banff, Drumheller and a few other places in my constituency, but the vast number of people who live in the constituency of Bow River either depend directly or indirectly upon agriculture for their living. There is a great deal of ranching and livestock production and there is a tremendous amount of grain growing that goes on in the Bow River area. Consequently, this Bill is very important to the livelihood of the people of my constituency.
I wish to deal with some of the fundamentals first. I wonder why it is that agriculture and farmers, to put it colloquially, always get the dirty end of the stick. That is what has
Western Grain Stabilization Act happened over the years. Agriculture never gets a fair break. I have thought about this and wondered why this is so. The agricultural industry is basic to our entire lives. If we do not eat, we do not live. We do not eat unless there is production and production comes largely from our farms. Almost everything we eat comes from the land or from the sea. Farmers have a tremendous part to play in the production of the food that keeps us alive. So why is it that the agricultural industry always seems to be lagging behind the rest of the economy?
As the Hon. Member who just spoke said a few moments ago, when the farmers have money and are reasonably prosperous, the entire community is buoyant. I have seen that happen many, many times. I have seen times when our coal mines were working full blast, and that brought prosperity and buoyancy to the entire area around the coal mines. I have seen times when our farmers were getting a fairly reasonable price for their produce, and that brought buoyancy to the entire area. Consequently, it is important to analyse the situation and find out why farming has never been given its proper place.
The situation is like that of the Government's job programs. Every time a question is asked, the Ministers stand and say that we spent so many millions on this, so many billions on that. Government members are throwing money at jobs and they think the money, like an aspirin, will find the sore spot and cure it. Money does not work that way, and that is why the more millions of dollars that are spent, the more unemployment goes up.
If the Government were to diagnose the problem and find out what is causing unemployment-and the Government itself is causing it with things like the capital cost allowance- and then try to find solutions to those particular problems, it would be attacking things in a logical and scientific way. However, the Government does not do that. Government members just say that they are spending so many million dollars and they think that that satisfies the problem, even if the rate of unemployment keeps increasing as it does. The same is true with farmers.
Tonight the Government is saying that it is giving $300 million to the farmers. In the first place, it is the farmers' own money. The Government should stop arguing about the ratio of three to one. That stabilization fund was brought in so that the money contributed to it by the farmers and the money contributed to it by the Government would belong to the farmers. All of that money belongs to the farmers. That was the deal that the Government made with the agricultural community. Now it is telling the farmers that it is giving them two for one. By law and by agreement, every dollar in that stabilization fund belongs to the farmers. I do not like the Government now beginning to change that agreement and divide it up.
Let us look at the situation. Each part of the economy depends on every other part of the economy. Each part of the economy must be in proper balance for the economy as a whole to work. I think that is an important point. Basically, this means that the price received by one sector for its production must fit properly with the price received by other sectors.

June 27, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act There must be a proper balance between the prices. When that proper balance exists among all of the sectors, including the agricultural sector, then there is parity.
Farmers have been asking for parity for a long time. Parity simply means that there is a proper balance between the various parts of the economy, including the agricultural sector. If one sector charges prices that are too high, then it exists at the expense of the other sectors. If one sector receives too little for its production as farmers normally do, then it becomes the victim of the other sectors. If one sector borrows to the hilt, that too hurts the agricultural sector.
Producers have been the victims of our economy. Of the entire national income of Canada, 14 per cent should go to the agricultural sector. However, it is very seldom that the agricultural sector receives even close to that amount. There is no parity. Farmers do not get their fair share of the national production. As a matter of fact, probably the closest farmers have ever come to getting a fair share happened shortly after the war when farm produce was receiving a half-decent price.
Normally farmers receive an amount way below the national production and sometimes receive only 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 3 per cent of the national production. Consequently, they cannot exist. These low incomes create problems for more people than the farmers. The income that was not received by farmers fails to spread throughout the rest of the economy. When farmers do receive money, the benefits are spread throughout the rest of the economy. When the farmers do not receive it, their share of national production is way down.
In such times what do farmers have to do? They have to borrow. This starts that wicked cycle all over again-the farmer gets into debt and things get worse. High interest rates have hurt farmers and home owners more than anybody else. People produce with credit. Farmers need credit to produce. It is no wonder that 400 farmers went bankrupt in western Canada in 1983. Many more farmers went bankrupt across Canada because they could not meet their costs.
The Farm Credit Corporation and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) tell those farmers that they should sell some of their land. Farmers paid into the stabilization fund in the hope that when bad times came they would receive a little help with the money which they put into the fund. That is not the case. PC Members have begged, pleaded and prayed for the Government to make pay-outs. Month after month the Minister of Agriculture said, "soon". The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) told us that the Government was studying the legislation. It was studied for months, and in the meantime farmer after farmer went bankrupt. The money which was in that fund could have saved scores of those farmers if the Government had acted.
Why did it not act? It did not act for a very simple reason: The fund did not cover total costs. The program is spread over half the country. As well, it covers a number of products. Some farmers have no hope in the world of ever receiving a pay-out. About the only thing which will trigger a pay-out is
the wheat of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. All the other producers will probably never see a pay-out. We asked the Government to include the total costs of production. The Government has improved the legislation somewhat, but it still does not include all of the costs of production.
What about the interest costs? That is one of the biggest costs of agriculture. That is not included. What about inflationary prices? They are not included. What about the costs of transportation? That is a factor in production. What about the costs of machinery? Oh, no, the Government leaves out the important things.
I am glad to see this Bill. At least it will give farmers something to put in their pockets. It will give back to the farmers some of their own money. However, this Bill is still unfair. There will be farmers who put money into this fund who will never get back a cent. These farmers are being robbed by the Government. When these farmers opt out, if they have not received as much or more than they put in, plus interest and plus the contribution by the Government, they should be paid the difference. If they did not receive any pay-out at all, they should get their money back with interest.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Absolutely. Any other business in the world would do that. It is highway robbery. The Minister can laugh if he likes, but the farmers are not laughing. The Government takes their money year after year after year and then we in the Opposition have to beg the Government to give those farmers a little bit back-a few crumbs so that they can stay alive. It almost seems that the Government is trying to bankrupt the farms.


Mr. Peterson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that I am disrupting the proceedings of the Chamber, but I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to revert to the presentation of reports from standing and special committees. The reason I am doing this is that this afternoon the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs had an opportunity to consider Bill C-36, which deals with amendments to the Interest Act. Those amendments affect home owners and their mortgages. Therefore, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to that proceeding in order that I might table the report from the standing committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent to revert to the presentation of reports?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Michael Forrestall: No, I would like to intervene-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair cannot entertain speeches on such a proceeding. All the Chair can do is ask whether there is unanimous consent to revert to the presentation of reports.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.



June 27, 1984

Western Grain Stabilization Act



Ian Deans: I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: There are two points of order. I will first recognize the Hon. Member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order simply because the intervener rose on a point of order. I rose merely to ask whether we might have the benefit of looking at what is to be presented. I am aware that there were previous negotiations and I am not withholding unanimous consent. However, the matter was raised as a point of order and 1 simply intervened to ask whether we might not see the report. I believe that we are quite prepared to give consent. There is no question about that. But, it was a point of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was particularly intrigued by the question which was asked by the Hon. Member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) who, in rising, asked what the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) was asking to present. I was waiting to hear, and now I know. At this precise moment, he is being shown the document which is the subject matter of the request for unanimous consent. I just took a look at it and I am sure that, now he has seen it, it would be possible to gain the unanimous consent which is necessary to allow the report to be tabled.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, now that we know perfectly well who is in bed with whom, of course we are quite prepared to give unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair will again ask if there is unanimous consent to revert to the presentation of reports. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the implication of the Hon. Member who spoke last is one that I cannot refuse. I appreciate very much the consent of the House in allowing me to rise to present the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I thank the House very much for the privilege it has accorded me.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture; and the amendment (Mr. Axworthy).
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is before the House of Commons at a time when Canadian farmers are in trouble. They are in trouble for a number of reasons. Part of the problem in my province might have been due to the weather in the spring of 1984, and the weather which we have experienced over the past few weeks, namely, excessive rain. But, farmers throughout the ages who have followed the pursuits of farming, the production of food, have always been able to cope with that kind of trouble. What is causing more farming bankruptcies today is not due to the weather, it is due to government policy.
As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), mentioned, the Bill before us will be passed in the last minutes of this House before it rises for the summer, and possibly the end of this Parliament should an election intervene. It is a Bill which is, at best, a minimal attempt to address the issues which farmers in Canada are facing. What farmers are facing, Mr. Speaker, is a debt load and an increasing interest rate problem which is jeopardizing their economic viability more than any other single factor.
This weekend, before I came back to Ottawa, a young farmer in my riding called me. I know him very well. He is farming with his father and they have a successful farm. He asked me whether or not the Western Grain Stabilization Bill would be passed before the House rose for the summer. I told him that from our point of view, we not only had asked for the Bill, but through the weeks we had pressured the Government for the Bill, and that we would do everything in our power to see the Bill passed before the end of June. At that point in the conversation I asked him if it would make a great deal of difference in their farming operations. He said to me, "It is not going to solve our problems but anything which will in some way address the financial squeeze we are in is welcome". That, Mr. Speaker, is why we have pushed for this Bill.
I want to tell the House that this Bill does not resolve or solve the financial problems of the farming community today. I have already said that the major problem is the financing of the debt load. That is why farmers are going bankrupt. That is why we are seeing foreclosures. That is why we are seeing unrest on the Prairies, for example, among people who, when they produce food, are at their best. When you look at the economic history of Canada over any period, but especially the post-war period, there has been no group of people in society who have been more efficient and whose productivity has

June 27, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act
increased more dramatically than the farmers, and it is because of that that they are still surviving.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, if one takes a look at the more traditional industries, what some people would like to call the multinationals, one will find that with respect to their postwar labour situation, on a net basis they have not created new jobs. They have stabilized their labour force, and in most cases their labour force is down. There are three areas in which the labour force has been increased. One area is the public service, which has had tremendous growth over this period of time. The other two areas are small business and agriculture. We cannot even measure what the effect on the labour force is when agriculture is doing well or is not doing well.
Many years ago I was working in a small business in my home community which sold cars and trucks for General Motors. It is very interesting to note that in Ontario at that time the automobile manufacturers felt they had a good year when the economy was growing. They had an excellent year when farmers would come in at the tail end of the tax year and put in orders for trucks, cars and machinery. It is no different on the Prairies today. They are shrewd business people. I say to you that agriculture is the industry which creates jobs, and today part of our labour problems are due to the financial squeeze which our agriculture communities are in.
We now have the stabilization bill before us. On average this Bill will give $2,500 to farmers who will simply be getting the money back which they put into the fund in the first place. I do not know if you know this, Mr. Speaker, but I know that there are some of my colleagues in this House-and I will not identify them-along with farmers in my riding, who will spend more money today in spraying their crops than the average pay-out from the grain stabilization is going to give them. That is the situation. There is no point, Mr. Speaker, in saying in this House of Commons today that this legislation is going to do wonders for the farm economy. It is only of minimal help, but thank goodness, at least there is something.
I remember when this Act was passed. At that time, a former Hon. Member for Assiniboia, now the Leader of the Liberal Party of Saskatchewan, was working with the then Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Hon. Otto Lang. I remember him running up and down the aisles of this House trying to convince us from western Canada that this would be a good deal for western farmers. I will never forget it. I remember him going back and forth trying to get the deal put together. We consistently asked him what guarantee will the farmers have? Where is the commitment from the Government? But he was absolutely convinced that this was the best thing which would ever happen to western agriculture. What is ironic is that this Government, which passed that legislation, today, last week and last month, has been forced, pushed and cajoled into bringing forward legislation which would at least reflect in part the economic reality that is now facing western Canada. The Western Grain Stabilization Act was simply not realistic.
It is important to note today what we said then when that Bill was passed. We said that those clauses were of such a
nature there literally had to be a disaster if there was going to be a pay-out. It was not the Government which was taking a risk. It was the farmer who was putting the money into the fund who was taking the total risk. That is what we were dealing with. And all we are doing today, Mr. Speaker, is correcting in part, in a small way, what was wrong in the first place.
I want this Bill to be passed today, but I want notice to be served that I am not impressed with this Bill. Nor am I impressed with the government's agricultural policy. It takes more to give leadership in agriculture than to walk around the country wearing a green stetson. If we are going to get this country turned around economically we must get back to the basics, such as agriculture. There has to be more emphasis placed on agriculture. In the 12 years I have been here, Mr. Speaker, this Government has brought forward few bills relating to agriculture. More importantly, agriculture has not been a priority of the Cabinet. Some of my colleagues might disagree with my next statement, but a least sometimes I thought the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was trying to give some voice to agriculture, but it fell on the deaf ears of his colleagues.
All we are doing today, Mr. Speaker, is correcting in part that which was wrong in the first place. What I am saying is that we have to place much more emphasis as Canadians on agriculture. If we will do that, not only will our agricultural community prosper but jobs across the country will be created. That lack of emphasis is the legacy of this Liberal Government. That is why its platitudes or sudden revelations that it knows where the West is finally located is not going to make any difference. The record speaks for itself and the agricultural record of this Government is something for which it should be condemned.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate. For a long, long time, I believe since before we broke at Christmas, Hon. Members of my Party have been asking the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) when the Western Grain Stabilization Bill would be brought into the real world and address the realities involved in farming in western Canada.
There is one day left before this House rises for the summer recess. In all likelihood we will be going into a general election. At least that is what we on this side are hoping for. But we have presented to us in the dying hours of this session a Bill that does not reflect the realities of the production of food. It does not reflect the realities of interest rates, the cost of fuel, machinery and fertilizer. Indeed, it does not reflect the realities involved in purchasing land or putting up farmstead buildings.
We on this side are going to support this Bill. I hear the Minister of Transport saying "good". I hope when the election is called he has the opportunity to come to my riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster in Saskatchewan. I invite him to
June 27, 1984

come and discuss with my farmers their feelings about the Western Grain Stabilization Act, indeed their feelings about the last 20 years of Liberal administration. I offer him the opportunity and we will see one another in Kindersley-Lloyd-minster in Saskatchewan.
Some $300 million is to be paid out under this Bill which the producers themselves have placed in trust with the Government of Canada so that it would be available to them when they needed it to stabilize their income. The Minister of Transport knows full well the amount of taxpayers' money, not farmers' money, which has been put into the riding of Win-nipeg-Fort Garry, his own riding, some $700 million to $800 million. The Minister is saying "yes, somewhere around there". He is not sure. That works out to $100,000 per voter. Now he is doing the math to see how much money he has spent on each one of the voters in his riding. He finds I have come up a little high.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Not much.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: That is $700 million into one riding, and some 150,000 Wheat Board permit holders are being offered $300 million which the producers paid into the fund in the first place. The Government is offering to give it back, some $2,500 per farmer as estimated by the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
I am not a cynical man. I do not look for hidden motives or angles like some people on the other side of the House. But I am not sure, indeed I have great doubts, whether we would even be debating this Bill if there was not the possibility of a general election.
There is another thing which should be brought to the attention of the Minister. If the media reports are correct he is going to be-and I hate to say this because it refers to a native son of my province-another Jimmy Gardiner. He is now going to be responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Woe to the producers of grain in western Canada if the Minister has that responsibility and is allowed to run amuck among the most sacred thing the producers of western Canada have, the only thing that protects them from the deviations of the world market, the Canadian Wheat Board.
We have noticed in the past that there seems to be a tendency on the part of this Government not to pay too much attention to the people who produced the grain, but to pay a lot of attention to the people who derive their livelihood on the backs of producers. A prime example would be Bill C-155, the transportation Bill, which the Minister of Transport brought in. After some debate and some amendments, he used closure to put it through the House. We have heard the estimates of the number of jobs being decreased and increased. It is now estimated at about 155,000 jobs, where before it was 300,000 plus. Think back to that debate. We heard about $16 billion being invested, but now it is only $12 billion. If you think back, we never once heard the railways give those numbers. We never heard them say there would be over 300,000 jobs created. They never said they would invest $16 billion. But I heard the Minister of Transport and his predecessors say it. I
Western Grain Stabilization Act read the expensive propaganda distributed throughout Canada saying that these investments would be made. But these statements were made by the Government, never by the railroads. Now we find that the railroads are not going to invest that money. But the Government used its propaganda machine to make people believe these investments would take place. I know the Minister of Transport is proud of being the co-campaign chairman for Mr. Turner who won the leadership of his Party. That is a political achievement, I am sure. Mr. Turner happened to be a director of Canadian Pacific.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Still is.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I am sure he was very close and comfortable with "Mr. six and five", Ian Sinclair. He now sits in the Senate, having been appointed by this Government.
Then there is that man who had his life reversed, Mr. Horner. Most people, if they are going to become a socialist, do so when they are young. Mr. Horner did it in reverse. He became a socialist Liberal when he got older. He is now the chairman of the Senior Grain Transportation Authority.
Then there was another Minister of Transport, the man who said, "Transportation is a mess but what will I do about it?" He went to the Senate and became Speaker. Then the present Minister of Transport had him appointed chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission.
Do you really think the grain producers in western Canada are being cynical, are being anything more than reasoned and rational people when they say "We really do not think we have a chance with this Government the way it stacks the deck for the Canadian Pacific Railroad". Does anyone wonder, given the Minister of Transport, the Leader of the Liberal Party, Senator Sinclair, Senator Marchand, now the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, and Mr. Horner, the chairman of the Senior Grain Transportation Authority?
Agriculture is a multimillion dollar industry, a megaproject which goes into the ground every year whether it is dry or wet. If farmers do not have the money, they borrow it. It is the biggest megaproject this country has and it is a renewable megaproject. It generates some $19 billion in Canada. Over half of that is generated on the Prairies. Right now costs have tripled since 1971. The prices received by producers are well below 1973 levels. There has to be some consideration for people who invest their lives and those of their families in the production of food. If there was, they could go ahead and do what they enjoy doing and contribute, not to just Canada but to the world. It does not make sense when we have the Farm Credit Corporation charging 15 per cent interest for farm loans, while at the same time this Government, through CIDA, gives some $44 million interest free to India for the production of forests. It does not make any sense. There has to be a happy medium.
I see I am keeping the Minister of Transport up. He looks tired. I know he has had a busy day, but the people out in Kindersley-Lloydminster, Provencher, Portage-Marquette, Crowfoot, Bow River, Wetaskiwin and Moose Jaw are just coming in from spraying. They have been spending money to

June 27, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act buy chemicals produced in another part of Canada. They get off a tractor that was built in another part of Canada. They get into a half-ton truck built in another part of Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Don't you know about Versatile?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: In 1967 I bought a Versatile tractor and the total price was $9,000. It was a 118 horsepower four wheel drive. Do you know what it would cost to buy that today? It would cost $65,000. In 1967 I was getting $2.25 for a bushel of wheat. Today I am getting $4. The cost to increase my horsepower rose from $9,000 to $65,000. I see that my time is up. I hope the Minister understands the problem of the farming areas in western Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The question is on the amendment of Mr. Axworthy. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Lloyd Axworthy: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Lloyd Axworthy: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I will just make a few points to put our position about the Bill clearly on the record. I think the amendments improve the Bill. We lament the fact that we were not given more time in committee to make more improvements to the Bill. As the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) said, we served notice that there were other things to be done to the Bill which could have been done.
The comment which needs to be made is that it is too bad the Government did not have a Minister in the House to deal with the Bill. I think that would have made a difference. I would like to defend the Senate before I say what I am going to say. I think there are some excellent Senators and they do some excellent committee work. However, I have heard the Senate defined on occasion as living proof of life after death. If you look at the way in which the Minister who was responsible for this Bill performed on this Bill, it may put a little credence in that definition of the Senate. I say that just to make the point that I think we could have dealt more effectively with this Bill had we had someone in the House who was prepared to deal with it in a little more urgent and animated way. We probably would have had some better amendments.
We are happy to see the change in the trigger mechanism so that there will be a pay-out this year. In saying that, I would urge the Government again to give the Bill Royal Assent and
to get the arithmetic done so that we can have an interim payment which is as large as possible and as quickly as possible. That has been our concern since the start. We hope that the Government will take this as notice and get the payment out as quickly as possible.
We have some concerns about having it changed from a calendar year to a crop year basis. The jury is still out as to whether or not that will be an improvement. It is certainly a welcome improvement to allow spouses to be eligible to participate on a multiple basis. That is a worth-while improvement to the Bill and something which could have been done sooner. It is certainly welcome now.
With regard to the withdrawal procedure, I think it remains to be seen whether we need to go on a 10-year basis. I am not convinced that that could not be shortened. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) talked about producers wanting to have the option to withdraw. I think that is a valid concern. Ten years seems excessively long to a lot of producers. I wonder how that is going to work. We basically support the amendments. The Government has caught us between a rock and a hard place by bringing it in at this late date in the session. We certainly have to give approval to the Bill but I would like to reiterate the fact that the improvements could have been substantially better in many ways and the legislation is still flawed. It is going to require improvements in the future. With that I will close by saying that we hope the Bill is given Royal Assent as quickly as possible and that the cash which is urgently needed will be in the producers' hands as quickly as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.
* *


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with reference to an incident which transpired earlier this evening. The Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) stood in his place and indicated to the House that there had been consultations and consent given with respect to reverting to Motions in order that a report from the finance committee could in fact be tabled. I have spoken directly to the Member for Willowdale about this matter indicating my displeasure with the step that was taken by him in indicating that he had consulted. He had in fact not consulted.
We try to operate this place on the basis of a person's word being taken for granted. I was out of the Chamber very briefly. I am sorry this has happened. I do not like to see this kind of a matter dealt with in this way. If there are going to be consultations I am pleased to have discussions. I am sure the matter could have been resolved. However, for the Member for Willowdale to come into the House and indicate that he had consulted with me is simply not the fact. I want to put that on
June 27, 1984

the record. If that happens again we are going to find ourselves in a position where we simply will not agree to anything except in the normal course of events. I think that would be a very unfortunate way to have to operate the House of Commons. We operate on the basis of consultation with the House Leaders. I would not presume, nor would any member of my caucus, to say that there had been consultations with the Government House Leader if there had not been. I would do him the courtesy of making sure that there was a clear understanding with respect to the matter. It is a fait accompli. I simply bring this to your attention because I am concerned about the activities that have taken place. I have said that I have spoken directly to the Member for Willowdale and indicated to him my intense displeasure with what has transpired today.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, concerning what my colleague opposite just said, I was in the House when the Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) rose on a point of order. He did not mention consultation. He asked for unanimous consent, and I want to set the record straight. He only asked for unanimous consent to table the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in connection with Bill C-36. That is what he said in the House. In any case, my hon. friend will be able to check the record in Hansard tomorrow. He never mentioned consultation, he just asked for unanimous consent and that is when the Hon. Member's colleague behind him, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), rose and asked to see what it was. As far as I know, there never was any consultation. He just asked for, and obtained, the unanimous consent of the House to table this report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: On this point, whether or not there were consultations of course is not within the purview of the Chair. The Chair heard an Hon. Member asking for consent and the Chair asked whether there was consent in the House. It eventually became clear that consent was available. However, with regard to consultations, there is not much that I can do.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I think the observations with respect to this are very pertinent to the activity and the work we must do over the next two days. There was no question in my mind whatsoever that, implicit in the words of the Hon. Member, there would be agreement if you were to seek unanimous consent. I certainly would not have given unanimous consent until I was certain that there had been consultations, either with my House Leader or the finance spokesman for our Party. Indeed, I would not have risen had I not taken that inference. Of course I am imputing motives. There is no question about that. It is an unparliamentary thing for me to do and I very rarely do it. If I am, I will apologize. On the other hand, with any further occurrence of that kind, unless I
Committee Report
am absolutely satisfied that in the absence of my House Leader there has been consultation on concurrence, unfortunately there will not be consent given; not until such time as there is some assurance on all sides of the House.
The inference from the distinguished House Leader of the NDP, implicit in his question about why I was objecting, gave even further rise to my concern. There was no consultation and it was implicit in the seeking of consent.
In any event, I suspect that in the parliamentary process, with the courtesy that we follow, there is no attempt to seek unanimous consent without prior consultation in some usual or informal sense. You are nodding your head in the negative, Mr. Speaker. In the 19 or 20 years that I have been here there has always been the courtesy of consultation, conversation or discussion and then a process, unless in the usual way, the Government House Leader is attempting to further the Government's own ends. That was not the case this evening.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly. I understand that perhaps my hon. colleague has not witnessed in the past the seeking of unanimous consent without previous consultations having been held. I believe him. I have no reason to doubt his word that that never happened while he was physically sitting in the House. But he must have been away for many long periods of time. I have only been here ten years and during those ten years I very often have witnessed Members seeking unanimous consent without previous consultation.


J. Michael Forrestall: Not so at all.


Yvon Pinard: Probably my hon. colleague was campaigning for his nomination convention in Halifax, but that is understandable. However, that is the case.
What is clear now is that a colleague of mine was in the House when this happened. I see that the Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) is here and he will have an opportunity to clarify it. But we were told that he never indicated that previous consultations had been held. He was just merely seeking unanimous consent. I believe the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois) has just indicated that. I was not in the House, but if the Opposition suspects that we wanted to play a trick on them, I can assure them that we will not deal with this Bill before the end of June without their consent. So they should be very at ease. We are very sincere and acting in good faith. What was done was done in the normal practice.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is not normal practice.


Yvon Pinard: If my hon. colleague felt tricked, betrayed or that in his opinion the usual practice was not followed, he should rest at ease. We will not deal with the Bill before the end of June unless we have the unanimous consent of the House. I can give him that assurance.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Opposition is making a mountain of a mole hill. I was called to the Chamber, on a couple of minutes' notice in my capacity as chairman of the Finance Committee to table the Sixth Report of the

June 27, 1984
Committee Report
Finance Committee. It is a matter which had been discussed by all Parties this afternoon.
I came down in my capacity as chairman of the Finance Committee to do this and I sought the unanimous consent of the House. I explained the matter to the House. The Hon. Member opposite was shown the report, as was the House leader of the NDP, which we sought to table. I sought the unanimous consent of the House to revert to Tabling Reports from Standing and Special Committees.
What happened, unfortunately, is that the House Leader for the Opposition approached me outside the Chamber. I said yes, I understood that there was consent to table this particular report at that particular time. I never assured the Hon. House Leader for the Opposition that we had consent, I said that I understood that we had consent. For him to stand in the House and try to make it appear that I have deliberately tried to mislead the House bothers me a great deal.


J. Michael Forrestall: There weren't very many here but you sure as hell misled me.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I did not under any circumstances indicate, other than to the House Leader outside the Chamber, that I
had understood that consent had been obtained to do this tabling at that particular time. There was no attempt to mislead Hon. Members opposite. I do not see how there can be any complaint in terms of what our House Leader has said, that nothing will be done with respect to this Report without the unanimous consent of the Chamber. I do not know how our House Leader could be more fair. I do not know how the House Leader of the Opposition could have been more misleading in terms of what I had said to him.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that if I have ever heard an admission of guilt from any member, it came out of the mouth of the Member of Willowdale (Mr. Peterson). I simply do not think we can take his word with respect to matters in the future.


Yvon Pinard: Hansard will speak for itself tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. I believe that some members will have to resolve these difficulties between themselves with regard to consultations. Unanimous consent has been sought and obtained in a legal fashion.
It being nine o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 28, 1984