1966-10-11

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer certificates of the election and return of two members, namely:
Don Jamieson, Esquire, for the electoral district of Burin-Burgeo; and
Andrew Chatwood, Esquire, for the electoral district of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador.



NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Don Jamieson, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Burin-Burgeo, introduced by Right Hon. L. B. Pearson and Hon. J. W. Pickersgill.
Andrew Chatwood, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, introduced by Right Hon. L. B. Pearson and Hon. J. W. Pickersgill.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is because of a very sad occasion that I am obliged to rise in the house today. The Thanksgiving week end for all of us all over Canada was marred by the terrible accident at Dorion which took the lives of 19 young people and caused injury to 24 others, some of whom are in very grave condition.
This is but one of unfortunately too many of these accidents on the roads and at level crossings. I should like to tell the house that both the Canadian National Railways and the Board of Transport Commissioners have been conducting the most intensive investigations from the moment of the news of the accident. Every effort that it is possible to take will be taken to find out what was the real cause, and if it is found to be a situation that can be corrected the necessary corrective action will be taken, and taken without delay.
I feel sure, sir, that I express your sentiments and the sentiments of every member of the house when I express to the families of all those who lost their lives or who may have been crippled the deep sympathy of the house, which I believe is shared throughout the country.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, with the words of the Minister of Transport there will be entire agreement on the part of hon. members of the house and the people of the country as a whole. The terrible tragedy which struck Dorion evokes a maximum of sympathy in the hearts and souls of all Canadians.
What will be done, what action should be taken to guard against another repetition of a tragedy now twice repeated within a period of some two or three years? The Kiwanis club of Lake of Two Mountains communicated with me in these words:
Dorion bus train tragedy due to highly unsatisfactory level crossing conditions generally in this area. Corrective action required now. Commission investigation later.
We have the assurance of the minister that everything is being done by the railway company and the Board of Transport Commissioners fully to investigate this matter. This is part of the larger tragedy of week end slaughter of Canadians on our highways and is something that challenges-yes, demands-that in the spirit of unity between federal and provincial governments we recognize the need to prevent the terrible wastage of life which is taking place. Indeed, as compared to the casualties suffered by the United States forces in Viet Nam our week end highway casualties are often larger.
The sympathy of all Canadians is extended to the parents and families of those young people who died after an hour of happiness which turned into tragedy.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party wish to associate themselves with the expressions of regret and sympathy already put forward by the Minister of Transport and the right hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. We too wish to extend our condolences to the families of those who suffered such a tragic loss at the level crossing at Dorion.
8504	COMMONS
Dorion Level Crossing Accident
We are pleased to note that an immediate investigation is being carried on by the Board of Transport Commissioners and the railway company, and hope this terrible happening will cause the authorities to make a more careful examination of railway crossings generally. There have been far too many accidents of this nature in Canada in recent years, and it may be that inspections of these level crossings are becoming too much of a routine procedure and are not being carried out carefully or frequently enough. I hope this tragic event will stimulate some action in order that, if it is humanly possible, we will not have a repetition of this kind of thing.


Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we were astounded to learn last Friday evening that 19 young people had been killed in a terrible accident in Dorion. We have been informed since then that six others are in critical condition in Montreal hospitals.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) tells us that a full investigation will be conducted without delay in order to ascertain the cause of this accident. It is unfortunate that such an investigation had not been ordered earlier, because so many deaths and such a dreadful accident could have been prevented.
As a matter of fact, everybody knows that the traffic is always very heavy in Dorion and that a few miles in either direction from that town there are level crossings. I believe the investigators will have no trouble finding the cause of the accident. In the first place, that level crossing should have been removed many years ago.
It may not be appropriate, on such an occasion, to point out this fact, but the fact remains and those level crossings must necessarily be eliminated where traffic is so heavy.
Mr. Speaker, the group which I represent, the Ralliement Creditiste, share the grief of those sorely tried families. We extend to each of those families our heartfelt sympathy and we hope that the competent authorities will see to it that such accidents never occur again in our country.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Social Credit party

DEBATES	October 11, 1986
I wish to associate myself with the expressions of sympathy and concern at this tragedy which took place over the Thanksgiving week end. We extend our sympathy to the families of those who were killed. It is also a tragedy that it takes an accident of this type to bring to our attention the importance and urgent need of taking every precautionary step that will eliminate such accidents. We are reminded of the school bus accident that took place in Lamont, Alberta, several years ago and the number of young people, not to mention others, whose lives had been taken in railroad crossing accidents in the interval.
I would urge the minister at this time to reconsider a safety measure which has been discussed with him a number of times, namely the installation of electronic warning devices particularly on public vehicles such as school buses. Certainly precautionary measures should be given greater consideration in order to prevent such accidents, and these matters should not only be considered when an accident occurs and the situation is emphasized.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we associate ourselves with the expressions of sympathy put forward by other hon. members and urge the minister to take every possible action, not only to investigate this accident but to bring about safety measures such as have been suggested in order to prevent these accidents occurring.



TABLING OF REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON ELECTION EXPENSES

Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in English and in French two copies of the report of the special committee on election expenses.



TABLING OF REPORT ON ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) who has received this document, I table two English and two French copies of the report on the problem of Cape Breton coal mines, better known under the name of the Donald report.
October 11, 1966



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Grant Deachman (for Mr. Macaluso) moved: that the tenth report of the standing committee on transport and communications, presented to the house on Friday, October 7, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Milton L. Klein (Cartier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-234, to amend the Criminal Code (elimination of premium stamps in food establishments).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Milton L. Klein: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to eliminate the practice whereby supermarkets issue stamps redeemable in merchandise other than foodstuffs, which effects the elimination of competition in food prices as between supermarkets, makes for captive customers and adds to the cost of food items, to the detriment of the public.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall said bill be read a second time?


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken the opportunity of speaking with the representatives of each of the parties, and I have good reason to believe that the request I now make will receive unanimous approval. My request is that the bill just introduced by the hon. member for Cartier be given priority and placed as the first item of business under the heading of private members' public bills, and that it retain that position until disposed of. May I make that request, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


Frank Howard: Is there no consent to making it an order of the house?


Mr. Speaker:: It may be a little difficult to ascertain whether there is general consent among all members of the house that this bill be given the priority which the hon. member suggests it be given.
Legislation


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret very much having to advise the hon. member that there are negative voices heard by the Chair.


Frank Howard: They were Liberal negative voices.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the bill be read a second time at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE TRADING STAMPS, COUPONS, ETC.

Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-235, to amend the Criminal Code (trading stamps).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: It seems rather futile to introduce this bill after what the government members just did with respect to a bill of one of their own members. None the less, the purpose of this bill is similar to that enunciated by the hon. member for Cartier except that it goes beyond the concept of so-called trading stamps and includes coupons and receipts used for similar purposes, their purported design being to reduce food prices.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved:: That, in addition to the powers granted July 13, 1966, to the standing committee on northern affairs and national resources, the said committee be also empowered to obtain further information relating to matters and proiects dealing with national parks and historic parks and sites;
That for this purpose, the said committee be authorized to sit while the house is sitting or during adjournment of the house, to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and
That the clerk of the said committee and the necessary supporting staff do accompany the said committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.
October 11, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



BATTLE OF BRITAIN-REPORTED CANCELLATION OF COMMEMORATIVE SERVICE AND PARADE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him whether the Nova Scotia command of the Royal Canadian Legion is correct in its belief that the higher authority of the armed forces has seen fit to discontinue the parade commemorating the battle of Britain and the church service, as well as the placing of wreaths by the Royal Canadian Air Force as part of the annual commemorative service. If it is so, what is the purpose of this? Why should this event, the battle of Britain, that brought salvation to freedom all over the world, be denied celebration within Canada?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that no such decision has been taken by the higher authority nor promulgated to the commands. This would be a matter for the commands themselves to decide.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say that he has not received a resolution passed by the executive council of the Nova Scotia command to this effect, asking the government to reverse a decision denying Canadian veterans, and the people as a whole, the right to join in the commemoration of an event that takes its place amongst the greatest in the history of freedom?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If it has come in over the week end I have not yet had a chance to see it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the former minister of labour promised that transitional assistance benefits would be available to auto workers who were thrown out of work because of the Canada-U.S. auto agreement, may I ask the minister why such payments are not being made in the great majority of cases, and what steps the government are taking to comply with the commitment made by the former minister?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: In answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, may I say that some transitional assistance benefits have been paid in accordance with the assurances given by my predecessor. I might say also that subsequently there have been some new developments and changes in circumstances, and representations have been made within the last few days to me and to some of my colleagues in the government. These representations are under study, and if changes in the regulations are to be made they will be announced in due course.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Labour if it is correct that out of some 3,000 men displaced less than 200 have received transitional assistance benefits? If this information is correct, what is the reason for the small percentage receiving benefits?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The conditions that developed over the last few days and weeks have created a new situation from the one that existed a year ago. This is one reason why the matter is under active study at the present time.


Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforth):: May I ask a
supplementary question. In view of the complete breakdown of the voluntary aspect of the TAB plan and the intransigence of the motor companies in refusing to participate, would the government now give consideration to making the participation of these companies in the TAB plan compulsory?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I cannot accept the premises on which the question is based.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to ask the minister if it is correct that before the TAB benefits can be paid the auto companies must certify that the lay-offs are the result of the auto pact, and this is the reason for the hold-up?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That may be one factor.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the representations made by the automobile workers that TAB be paid in addition to SUB, has the minister arrived at any decision that will enable some action to be taken on this suggestion?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I might remind the hon. member of the visitation that I had from a very impressive delegation from Oshawa within the last few days. I assured them in his presence that they might expect a decision within 10 or 12 days.
October 11, 1966	COMMONS



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Transport. It could be directed also to the Minister of Labour.
As soon as Air Canada was threatened with a strike, an agreement was reached. The wage settlement included retroactivity, but to date the employees have not received anything.
Can the minister tell us today when he expects this back-pay will be paid to the employees of Air Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There may be some urgency beyond my grasp about the question put by the hon. member, but I would suggest that he put his question on the order paper.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, or a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
I believe the question is sufficiently important to justify an immediate answer. Besides, the minister seemed prepared to reply. We may find ourselves facing another strike if this question is not answered soon. I feel the urgency is obvious enough.


Mr. Speaker:: The eloquence of the hon. member for Villeneuve has won me over, and the hon. minister seems quite willing to answer his question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid, sir, I do not know the reply to the question, but I will ask Air Canada and do my best to give the hon. gentleman a reply.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the recommendation that red China be recognized and admitted immediately to the United Nations, as made yesterday by the Liberal party external affairs committee, reflect government opinion and policy?
DEBATES	8507
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I may inform my hon. friend and other hon. members of this house that we are having a very successful meeting. As the Prime Minister said in his opening remarks yesterday when he welcomed the delegates to the convention, the recommendations of the convention will serve very materially in enabling the government to reach conclusions in the national and international interests.


Michael Starr: Somebody should guide them.


Robert Norman Thompson: I ask the minister if he will answer my question. Does this decision reflect government policy?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think if my hon. friend will reflect he will see that I have answered the question.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question. I appreciate the comments made by the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the success of the convention presently under way in Ottawa; however, I would like to know if he is now considering the possibility for Canadian delegations going to London to receive a welcome similar to that which we had in Iran two weeks ago, because there was no one from the High Commissioner's office to greet the Canadian delegation at the London airport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not of a supplementary nature.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the decision taken at an important meeting held in this city yesterday to press for the elimination of tariffs in North America, is the government planning to initiate discussions with the government of the United States in the near future to further the realization of this objective?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my hon. friend would identify this meeting to which he refers.
8508	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the Liberal convention in Ottawa.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, any resolutions from such an important and successful meeting will certainly be taken very seriously by the government.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Was the Minister of Labour voicing government opinion and policy when he advocated North American free trade at the meeting last evening?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend should wait until I receive the exact text of what the minister said, and then he will realize that it is not quite as straightforward and as simple as the hon. member has indicated.


George Harris Hees: I would be glad to send a copy of what the minister said over to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, and then I would appreciate it if he would give me an answer to my question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, and to save the hon. member for Northumberland from getting to his feet, because he has been trying to rise to ask me if I have yet read the clipping he was good enough to send me, may I say I have and, as I suspected, his question is based on a press report which does not quote the Minister of Labour but merely states that at the convention last night the Minister of Labour spoke strongly in favour of free trade. Mr. Speaker, Liberal ministers have been speaking strongly in favour of free trade for 99 years and Liberal governments have been doing something about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A radio repo'rt from New York last week indicated that the minister was performing on a tightrope at the United Nations. Would the minister give the House of Commons a demonstration in answering the following

DEBATES	October 11, 1966
question? What is the government's policy with regard to the mandated territory of South-West Africa?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thought I gave my hon. friend a demonstration every time he asked a question in this house. On behalf of the government of Canada I said on Friday the Canadian government felt that because of the practice by the government of South Africa of its apartheid policy in South-West Africa, and because of its failure to report pursuant to resolutions of the United Nations general assembly, South Africa had forfeited its right to administer the mandate. We recommended the establishment of a committee of members of the UN to consider what steps could be taken to give effect to a resolution which I suspect will be passed some day this week in the general assembly.


Mr. David Lewis (York Souih):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the last answer of the minister, with which I entirely agree, would the minister inform the house why Canada abstained at the United Nations from voting on a motion to impose sanctions against South Africa for the very policy for which he has just shown his contempt?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is referring to a former resolution. He does not identify the resolution in question. There can be no question about the position of Canada and our feeling that South Africa has forfeited the right to administer the mandate because of its practice of apartheid and its failure to live up to the UN principles of accountability.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which follows upon that asked by the hon. member for York South. This vote was on the question of racial discrimination, with regard to which a resolution was brought into the United Nations last week. If Canada felt so strongly toward this country, why did we abstain from voting on this resolution?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oxford.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the minister asked about which resolution we were talking, and I have told him in order that we may have an answer.


Mr. W. B. Nesbill (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question which I would direct
October 11, 1966
to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Perhaps at the same time the minister could avail himself of the opportunity of answering the question put by the hon. member for Megantic.
Can the minister tell the house which resolutions are presently being either sponsored or co-sponsored by Canada at the current general assembly of the United Nations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not acceptable; it is not in order.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN PAYMENTS TO FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of Ihe Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I do not quite know to whom to direct this question, but I will direct it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in view of the absence of the Minister of Finance, who is spokesman for the wheat board.
Is the government now giving consideration to increasing the amount to be paid to the farmers for wheat in view of the fact that there was a cut a year ago of 18 cents a bushel, and in view of the continually rising cost of production? I put this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce because he is the one who has lately been dealing with wheat.
Hon. Roberi Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this matter does not properly fall within my sphere of activity, but I will be glad to take the question as notice and refer it to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. When he and his cabinet colleagues are giving consideration to increasing the price of wheat, would he also have them give consideration to raising the initial payment so that farmers in the western prairies can meet their early fall commitments?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, here again is a matter that comes appropriately under the Minister of Finance, but we have been urging an increase in the price of wheat with every consuming country in the world and I hope in due course we shall succeed.
Inquiries of the Ministry HIGHWAY SAFETY



ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, mention has already been made in the house today of the fact that once more we have set a record in Canada over this Thanksgiving week end for highway deaths and injuries. In view of this and in view of the unanimous-and I underline the word "unanimous"-recommendation of the committee on highway deaths and injuries which finished its studies of codes last week in Ottawa, is the government now considering the establishment of a national accident prevention research centre in Ottawa, and can we expect an announcement very soon in this regard?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minisier of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, as I think I mentioned earlier in reply to a somewhat similar question, consideration is now being given by the National Research Council to the parameters involved in setting up an establishment such as suggested by the hon. gentleman. When this study is complete-I hope this will not be too long-we will be able to see what will be possible and what will be practicable.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house whether or not some time ago the proper authorities made representations to the transport commission for underpass or overpass facilities at the Dorion tragedy site? Can the minister also assure the house the transport commission study will include a rigid and exhaustive inspection of the vehicle involved in the accident?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think I can assure the hon. gentleman that every aspect of whatever evidence can be secured in connection with the state of the vehicle, the signals and any possibility of human error will be secured. It is the desire both of the railway and of the board of transport commissioners not merely to establish the facts of the situation but to see whether they will provide us with any light on the best way to prevent a repetition of such an occurrence, not just at Dorion but anywhere else.

October 11, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



NEWSPAPER ARTICLES BY FORMER CHAIRMAN OF CHIEFS OF STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['The German chief of staff of the 30 German army group.\nOctober 11, 1966']
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister of defence. Has he seen any of the articles appearing in the Ottawa Journal written by General Charles Foulkes, retired chairman of the chiefs of staff and who at one time, I think in 1962, endeavoured to become a Liberal candidate? Has this matter been brought to the minister's attention? The article in question makes extremely grave charges. Indeed, it states that the situation is such that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition cannot quote the article to which he is referring.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to identify the article so the minister will be able to answer. In view of the charges made by General Foulkes, a supporter of the government, that the situation is serious-indeed, the minister has been asked "What are you doing with the armed forces?"-will he now give consideration to recalling the defence committee so that we will be able to ascertain why it is that the advice of these men who did so much for our nation is being disregarded in a way, as General Foulkes puts it, never equalled since Hitler?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, among the advice I have been taking is that of General Foulkes who, in an article in the Toronto Star some time ago, said that we should unify the armed forces of Canada and put them in one uniform. I have not seen the articles mentioned but I will read them with interest.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Last Friday the Leader of the Opposition asked a question with respect to an article which had appeared in the West German newspaper Der Spiegel, where two allegations of particular concern to Canada were made.
The first of these was that the allies had completely abolished all courts martial in the German forces so that those officers who

purported to act as a German court martial did so completely without jurisdiction. The German personnel concerned were not prisoners of war but disarmed troops who, on surrender, were to be disbanded.
The surrender orders signed and dated on May 5, 1945 held the German commander responsible for the discipline of his troops. At this juncture it does not appear there were any restrictions placed upon the Germans as to carrying out their normal legal processes. Restrictions on German disciplinary procedures were contained in military law No. 153 which was said to be effective on the date of its first promulgation. These were not received by the headquarters, 1st Canadian Army until the afternoon of May 14. The executions were carried out before this military law was promulgated to the headquarters of the First Canadian Army.
The second and perhaps more serious allegation was that one of Der Spiegel's sources of information stated that the trial and execution of the two men was Canadian inspired. This allegation is completely without foundation. Canadians were informed that a court martial was to be held and indicated that this would be in order, but upon finding out that the two men, if found guilty, were to be shot, informed the German officer that he was only to proceed with the court martial. Immediately following the court martial, when the sentence of death was pronounced, a message was passed to the headquarters of the 1st Canadian infantry division advising of the situation and asking for instructions. This message was passed by the Canadian division to German 30 corps and in less than three hours a reply was received from the 30 German army group that the chief of staff had approved the sentences and they informed their Amsterdam command accordingly. The 2nd Canadian infantry brigade was informed of the effect of this message.
From our investigations, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that both these allegations contained in Der Spiegel are completely without foundation.


John George Diefenbaker: Canadians will be happy to hear that. I asked my question in anticipation of an assurance that there had been no wrong doing. The minister mentioned that the chief of staff had approved the executions. What chief of staff?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The German chief of staff of the 30 German army group.
October 11, 1966



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques-Cariier-Lasalle):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport with regard to the tragic accident at Dorion and another the following day at Pointe Claire. Since the initiative in separating grade crossings is left with the mun.cipalities and provincial road departments, and since the federal grade crossing fund provides 80 per cent of the cost, up to $500,000 toward each new grade separation, would the Minister of Transport look into the possibility of having the Board of Transport Commissioners initiate, plan and execute these works in the future rather than leaving it up to the municipalities and the provincial departments?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is before the committee on transport at the present time, as my hon. friend is aware, a transportation bill which deals with the grade crossing fund. I hope the hon. gentleman will raise his question in that committee where there will be a better opportunity of considering its implications than is available to us on the orders of the day.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Transport aware of the fact that the Board of Transport Commissioners is now granting an extension of the time limit provided for in certain orders making it compulsory for some railways to instal automatic protection signals at some railway crossings? If so, who will be responsible for the eventual deaths resulting from these time extensions?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to look into that question though, of course, it does not arise in connection with this regrettable case, because the signals were there on the site on this occasion. What we want to find out is whether they worked effectively.


Mr. Augusie Choquelte (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?
Excuse me if there are several questions, but this is because the emergency debate has been waived.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I would ask the Minister of Transport whether it is his intention, in the course of this investigation, to make sure that this commission will operate in such a way as to allow witnesses to put before the commission their grievances against all railway crossings in Canada and that it will hear the suggestions that may be put forward?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the intention of the Board of Transport Commissioners to hold a public inquiry with respect to this particular accident as soon as the investigatory work has been completed. At such an inquiry any witness who had anything to contribute either in the way of evidence or, I would imagine, any suggestion to offer in that context would of course be heard.
As for the particular question raised by the hon. gentleman, we all know he is very much concerned about an accident in his own constituency in which four lives were lost. I believe the broadest possible inquiry should be held into all these cases, because it is just as regrettable to have four lives lost as it is to have a larger number lost.


Raymond Langlois: Will the Minister of Transport also inquire into an accident which happened a mile or so down the track, this time involving a C.P.R. train; in this case the passengers had time to get out of the car which was hit. The train was caught between red light signals and the gates a little farther down. Would the minister inquire into this?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



POSSIBLE IMPORTATION OF FISHING TRAWLERS FROM POLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the fact that while he was on his travels in Poland officials there discussed with him the possible sale of Polish fishing trawlers to Canada. Will the minister assure the Canadian shipbuilding industry that no action will be taken by the government which would be detrimental to its interests?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think the hon. member need fear that such transactions are imminent.
October 11, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr, MacEwan:: May I ask the minister responsible for shipbuilding subsidies whether he will give an undertaking to the shipbuilding industry of Canada that no change will be made in the present subsidized building program which means so much, especially in the Atlantic area?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: think the hon. member is aware that legislation outlining the new subsidy policy has already been proposed in the house by way of resolution. This will be the law.



COLUMBIA RIVER-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN DAM CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: In
order to satisfy the curiosity of a number of people in British Columbia, including many supporters of the Prime Minister's party, I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman this question. Did Premier Bennett recently ask the federal government for financial assistance in building the dams on the Columbia under the terms of the Columbia river treaty and, if so, what was the government's response to this request?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am aware of no such request and I would be surprised if one were made, because there is no place for such a request in the Cana-da-British Columbia agreement on this matter.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleion):: May I ask the
Secretary of State in her capacity as rapporteur for the Civil Service Commission to tell the house what consideration the commission has been giving to the demand made last Friday by the staff conference for immediate relief of red circled civil servants?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will ask my colleague the president of the Treasury Board, who is responsible for this aspect of the civil service, to answer that question.


Hon. E. J. Benson (President of Treasury Board):: The matter of red circling is a long and involved one. My understanding is that the staff-side conference in dealing with the Civil Service Commission has agreed that the position with regard to red circling should be

looked at as of December 31 of this year, by which time it is hoped that a great many people who are presently red circled will be out of that category, having been moved into other categories by their departments.


Richard Albert Bell: As a supplementary question, is the minister saying there will be no relief for red circled civil servants before December 31 of this year?


Edgar John Benson: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, relief is taking place every day as departments are trying to take people out of red circled positions and move them into positions that are not circled.



COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF REPORT ON POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the submissions that have been made to him by the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers that the joint parliamentary committee on Bill C-170 should not complete its sittings until it has received the Montpetit commission report, and that these unions be given an opportunity to make further representations, can the Prime Minister assure the house that he will accede to this request?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that this report should be available later this week or early next week, so I think there is no danger of the contingency to which my hon. friend refers.



WHEAT-POSSIBLE FURTHER SALES TO MAINLAND CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the assistant commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board has arrived in Peking, has the minister anything to report on behalf of the government regarding the possibility of further wheat deals with China? I know the minister does not speak for the wheat board, although I believe he should, but perhaps he could advise me what weight to give to this report.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment at the moment.
October 11, 1966



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. What is the present status of the federal board of conciliation in the dispute between the United Press International and the Canadian Wire Service Guild?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this dispute between United Press International of Canada and the Canadian Wire Service, a Canadian local of the international union is now before a board of conciliation. The two sides agreed upon the chairman. The information given me is that the board was to have held its hearings on Thursday and Friday last. I have received no word to the contrary, and I expect to receive its report when it has completed its consideration of the matter.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has he yet considered the brief submitted by the Navy League of Canada, the Canadian Naval Association and the Naval Officers' Association and, if so, would he give immediate consideration to referring that very responsible brief to the standing committee on national defence?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that I have not yet had time to read it in full, but I do suspect that if the committee, when it meets to consider the proposed legislation, wishes to consider the brief and summon any of the persons responsible for preparing it, that will be something completely within its jurisdiction.


John George Diefenbaker: Why not now?


Mr. Lambert:: You are afraid of it.



RIVERS, MAN.-REPORTED INTENTION TO CLOSE TRAINING CENTRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of National Defence. Is he now in a position to inform the house when and where the meeting will take place with respect to the continuing role of the air training centre at Rivers, Manitoba?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not, Mr. Speaker. An undertaking has been given to meet with officials from the province of Manitoba. I cannot tell the time or place, but I know we are available to meet with them almost any time they wish to come.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As a supplementary question, when a date has been set would the minister inform me.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I shall be pleased to let the hon. member know.



NOVA SCOTIA-INQUIRY AS TO OPENING OF NEW MINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources based on the Donald report which was tabled today. In view of the fact that the initial policy announced a year ago on October 3, 1965, by the then minister of labour was in favour of the opening of a new mine at Lingan, which he said would constitute an essential part of the new program, and in view of the fact that this was reiterated by the now Minister of National Health and Welfare on October 3, 1966, in Cape Breton, and in view of the fact that the Donald report says that the opening of a new mine-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: -should not be undertaken-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly pose his question? He cannot preface a question with a speech.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I was just laying a foundation for the question and also trying to make it easier for the minister. Finally, in view of the fact that Dr. Donald has said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Muir: -that the opening of a new coal mine at Lingan should not be undertaken-
October 11, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. mem- Mr. Speaker: Order, please, ber may make it easier for the minister but he is making it more difficult for the Chair,	Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Vicand I would ask him to pose his question.	toria): This is an important question.


Robert Muir: Thank you, sir. Can the minister now advise if a new mine is going to be opened at Lingan, Cape Breton, and how soon?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the
procedure following the tabling of the Donald report is to allow further discussions to take place and representations to be made to the government in the coming weeks. The government will bring down its policy in due course.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What about the announcement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Robert Muir: As a supplementary, may I ask the minister this question. Are we now going to be faced with a commitment made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare which is not going to be kept?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: I repeat the question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would bring to the attention of the hon. member that we are almost running out of time and a number of other hon. members still want to ask questions. I would ask his co-operation to allow the Chair to recognize other members. Has the hon. member a quick supplementary?


Robert Muir: On a point of order, since approximately 2.30 I have been trying to get the floor. This is a very important subject to our area, just as important as the question of dairy producers and butter production. I am not so small that I cannot be seen


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Muir: Now I am asking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: Other members have been allowed to advertise the Liberal convention-
(Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria).]


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize it is a very important question, and I am sure the hon. member will recognize that a number of important questions have been asked and that there are still a number of hon. members who have not had an opportunity to be recognized. This is what the Chair is trying to do before 3.42, which is just two minutes away.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If there is to be a supplementary it should be by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria. I recognize that hon. member.


Robert Muir: Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. The minister has said that representations are going to be made to the government. Since the first announcement about this matter was made a year and some days ago, how much longer are we to wait for action to be taken? A sum of $25 million was guaranteed by the former minister of labour, and also the opening of a new coal mine at Lingan.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I say this problem has been with us for quite a number of years, I think since 1937.


Robert Muir: But you had all the answers.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I believe we are now moving toward a solution.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Registrar General I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he can give us a report on the housewives' boycott of the supermarkets in Ontario.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to do that now, but I am following this boycott very carefully.
October 11, 1966	COMMONS



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a brief question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he in a position to say when all foreign fishing vessels will be excluded from the waters within 12 miles of our coasts?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations we are having will take on a new turn when we meet with the United States negotiators here this Monday.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to address to the right hon. Prime Minister. Speaking in the house on August 31 in respect of the maintenance of railway operation bill, as reported at page 7909 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said that when the will of parliament is expressed by legislation the law abiding citizens of Canada will observe the will of parliament. I should like to ask him, does the cabinet not observe the Criminal Code and the law with regard to capital punishment, as it appears in the Criminal Code and as sustained by a vote in this house last April?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; and when a jury makes a recommendation for mercy it has invariably been accepted in the form of commutation by the government.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In respect of the second last commutation there was no recommendation for mercy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not true, Mr. Speaker.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: You will not get away with that.



CANADIAN LIVESTOCK FEED BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, October 7, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-218, to provide assistance to livestock feeders in
DEBATES	8515
Canadian Livestock Feed Board eastern Canada and British Columbia-Mr. Sauve-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 15-Canadian Livestock Feed Board Advisory Committee.
Mr. MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak again on this matter and I beg the indulgence of the committee in doing so, realizing I have indicated already on one or two occasions my thoughts with regard to this particular clause. I feel that in many ways this is one of the most important, if not the all-important clause in this bill in terms of its effectiveness in implementation, because I think if we fail to grasp the proper purpose of this bill, which is related to the power and quality of the advisory committee, then we endanger the very purpose of, and the very hope for, an effective bill. That is the reason I am somewhat disturbed that the advisory committee is painted for us, through the various subclauses of clause 15, as being a very ineffectual instrument, at least in my view.
It will be noted that in this bill we are seeking to establish a board which will consist of three to five members. As I indicated before we must expect, since these will be full-time members and since the problems with which they will deal will be very complex, that the persons who will be on the board will of necessity, I think, be people who would be described as experts. They will reside in Ottawa and they will, if you like, view things from a bureaucratic point of view. It is very important for the implementation of this bill that they do this. That is why I think that in the wisdom of those who have drawn up the bill they have decided it was fundamental to the implementation of this program that there be an advisory committee, but I would hope it would be an advisory committee that would mean something.
When I think of an advisory committee that would mean something, I think of an advisory committee which has an independence of judgment and has information available to it which is not just information given to it by either the board or the responsible minister. I think of it as a committee with close ties with the various interested groups such as the Federation of Agriculture, the various poultry, dairy and beef producers and others, even those who are trying to increase their own grain business either in eastern Canada or British Columbia.
October 11, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board
I think of this advisory committee not as just a group of people who may or may not come from different regions; I think of it as being comprised of people who have a very close tie with organizations which are close to the grass roots situation. I think too of the advisory committee having members who are able to speak freely to and on behalf of the area they represent. These are things I would expect to see in an advisory committee. I would not like to see an advisory committee appointed comprising a number of people, 7 or ll, who will be paid a very nice daily allowance plus travel fees, who will meet perhaps two or three times a year in Ottawa, who will accept without question what the board or the minister tells them and who will issue very functional and pleasant statements once a year which will give some description of what their activities have been.
I for one feel that if we are to have an advisory committee at all which will mean anything we have to build it into the various subclauses in clause 15. I think we will have to say something very specific about the availability of some kind of staff for the advisory committee and in particular the availability of some kind of research and independent information facilities. I think we also have to indicate that the various people who are proper to be members of this committee should in some way represent the important agencies which are caught up in this great problem. It may not be possible to designate that, say, the Federat'on of Agriculture have an appointee, but this would be one of the happiest solutions. There must, however, be some recognition of the close ties that will exist between this committee and the organizations which have a real stake in the question of increasing the availability of grain and supplying it to the producers.
I think we have to state very clearly that the committee is free to examine questions of its own choice. In my view this is not stated clearly enough. In subclause 6 it says that only matters referred to it by the minister or by the board are acceptable for consideration. I think the committee should be able to decide on its own what particular avenue or aspect it wants to investigate. Finally, I think we should add at the end of subclause 6(b) something to the effect that this committee shall publish information and conclusions on a regular basis so that producers in the eastern and western parts of the country can know what are the real facts.

We have an example right now of an impasse in the great misunderstanding which exists between some of the officials and private industry in respect of the new rates. Some of the local producers have been meeting last week and this week to sort out what they mean.
I think we need a real advisory committee which will mean something and not be like a shadow of what the minister may decide. I think we should build these things into clause 15. It may be that over the week end since Friday the minister has been able to consider my statement in this regard, consult with his advisors, and is now able to make available to us this afternoon some means by which these things may be brought about. If not, I will be ready to make various amendments which I feel are important to this clause of the bill.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Sauve:: Mr. Chairman, on Friday I did not have an opportunity to answer the suggestions of the hon. member. His proposal is to establish a second board. We have one board and we have an advisory committee. I feel that the powers of the advisory committee are sufficient. I informed the house last Friday that this committee would work, mutatis mutandis, on the same basis as the Canadian council on rural development which works I think to the satisfaction of all concerned. I do not see how we can improve on clause 15, particularly when we compare it with the ARDA legislation containing only two paragraphs in respect of the council on rural development. I am quite satisfied that the intent and the wording of the bill are sufficient for the establishment of an advisory committee for the purposes explained. Surely we cannot have two boards doing the same work. I do not think we can improve on the intent of this bill by implementing what the hon. member has suggested.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat amazed by the minister who seems to think I have suggested the establishment of two boards. Because of the complexity of the situation we need an advisory committee that means something. If he is thinking of an advisory committee with the ability to look at the situation objectively but which is not going to have any power, then he does not want an advisory committee at all. Perhaps he is thinking of a group of people who will somehow placate the many who disagree with the decisions of the board.
October 11, 1966

The need for an advisory committee should be obvious under present circumstances. We are dealing with a very complex problem and certainly no one on Friday tried to minimize the complexity of the factors that will have to be taken into account. The very fact that economists and other experts of one kind or another have declared the need for new criteria under which eastern freight rates on grain must be administered is an indication of this need. It takes many weeks for those who are using these rates to understand and interpret them in order to realize whether or not they are being exercised fairly.
If we are to make the best use of the terms that this plan will provide, if we are to make the most adequate use of the resources of the people who are involved on a day to day basis, not from the standpoint of administering a program here in Ottawa but from the standpoint of the people who are trying to make the best use of the program, whether they live in the rural areas of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland or British Columbia, it is important that some objective body be established which can advise the minister, the board and the people who may be concerned.
If what I suggest is not the case, then what kind of an objective look could be taken at this program, apart from an examination and criticism by those who may not be able to obtain the necessary information in order to come to an efficient and honest judgment? I think an advisory committee is necessary in light of the fact we are dealing here with a program regarding an effective method by which adjustments should be made in various areas. It is certain that we cannot lay down in very simple terms a program that is going to apply with equal fairness to southern Ontario, for example, and to some part of Newfoundland. Who is going to provide the necessary interpretation to the board in order that it can make the right kind of adjustment allowing the program to be administered fairly and with equity of opportunity?
The kind of thing mentioned by the hon. member for Medicine Hat last week is vitally important in this area and I do not think we are going to obtain the desired result unless we are prepared to establish a group of individuals who will have an independence of judgment and the information necessary to make independent judgments. I am not suggesting that we establish a group with decision-making powers or the administrative powers which will be left with the board.
Canadian Livestock Feed Board
Certainly I am not suggesting that we establish a second board, but I do suggest that the advisory committee must be such that it will have some meaning and will encourage the farmers and producers to realize that they are obtaining the services of a board in terms of storage or transportation rate adjustments on the soundest basis possible.
While I mentioned on Friday that I hoped something similar to the rural development council would be instituted, on again reading the provisions establishing that council I must admit I have had some second thoughts. Therefore I certainly would not regard that council as some kind of standard to be followed in inaugurating this advisory committee at this point.


Maurice Sauvé: I really do not see what I can add to what I have said. Clause 15 of the bill is clear in that it gives the advisory committee a number of powers. This will be a body similar to the Canadian council on rural development. If the hon. member insists that he is not satisfied with that kind of a council, I can only repeat that what he wants is another board. I cannot accept any modification of this clause which would implement what the hon. gentleman wants.


Raymond Langlois: The minister
seems to be somewhat satisfied with clause 15 as it now stands. It does provide for the establishment of an advisory committee. There is no agreement as to the need for such a committee. Our fears are not related so much to the question of who will be appointed to the board as to the question of who should not be appointed to it. An advisory committee such as the one envisaged will present opinions to the board which from time to time will be accepted. There should not be in a bill such as this any kind of opening which would permit the appointment of unscrupulous speculators.
Clause 15, subclause 6, paragraph (a) states that the committee will study and review all matters relating to feed grain transportation, storage, prices and consumption which are referred to it by the minister or by the board. Surely that covers the whole program. I am strongly opposed to any possibility of the appointment to this committee of individuals who are now brokers or members of the Montreal, Winnipeg or Toronto grain exchanges. Let us specify that the members of this committee shall not be individuals who are already selling grain or in the business of
October 11, 1966

Canadian Livestock. Feed Board transporting it. In order to avoid the possibility of any conflict of interest on the part of the members who will constitute this committee, let us spell out that it shall be composed of individuals representing organizations like the U.C.C. or farm co-operative organizations of any kind so long as they are not now in the business of buying, selling or transporting grain.
We have all observed such a conflict of interest in the Wheat Board which has on occasion asked the brokers to indicate what prices will be. The Wheat Board has given brokers the opportunity of selling grain which it bought from western farmers. This is the type of thing we do not want to take place. Speculators might give false reports which the board would rely on and it would be a long time before the resulting mistakes could be corrected.
Let me repeat that we are not as concerned with who is appointed to the board, as with who is not appointed to it. There should be some amendment in respect of this clause dealing with the advisory committee to prevent the possibility of what I have suggested happening. There should be no opening which would allow a speculator in this field to become a member of this committee. Such an occurrence could ruin the effectiveness of the program we have in mind.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Who is going to be on the receiving end again? It will be the eastern farmer or the British Columbia farmer who will still be wondering what is wrong with his prices and why things are not as they should be.
The board might have its own opinion but most of the time it will follow the advice of the advisory committee. This committee should be at least independent of what we might call the commerce of feed grains. The U.C.C. should have its representatives on the committee. The advisory committee should also consult people who do at the moment or will in the future handle grain, who are in the transportation business, the storage business, the selling business or are millers of any kind. It should be the task of the advisory committee to go out and see these people, obtain their views, grievances and opinions, as well as those of the farmers, and draft a report for the board. I want the minister to assure the house that there will be no conflict of interest in the advisory committee in this regard.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, could the minister indicate to the committee just what procedure will be followed in the appointment of the members of this advisory committee. Is it to be on the recommendation of the various farm organizations of the areas concerned, or just what procedure will be followed?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, we will follow the procedure adopted with regard to the Canadian council on rural development, namely, consult the various organizations and ask them to submit one, two or three names. Then we will decide on the appointments to be made from the people recommended by the various organizations.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the members of this group are very concerned about the composition of the advisory committee. That is why when we were last considering this clause I asked the minister who would comprise the advisory committee. If I remember correctly, the minister said that it would be composed of representatives of the farmers organizations in Canada. With that assurance we thought that the farmers' organizations were quite capable of bringing to the attention of the minister any suggestions or recommendations they might have with respect to the administration of the board. In order to assure members on this side of the house what the composition of the committee is likely to be, would the minister mind repeating what he said with regard to those he intends to appoint to the advisory committee?


Maurice Sauvé: As I said in answer to the hon. member's question of last Friday, as reported at page 8496 of Hansard:
They will be appointed on a regional basis and will represent farm organizations.
I said we would seek the advise of the farmers' organizations, ask them to submit one, two or three names and then select people from the names submitted to us.


Raymond Langlois: I quite agree with that so long as it is the farmers' organizations who submit the names. If the farmers' organizations were to submit lists of names it would prevent any come-back in the future and somebody saying that the people appointed to the committee were just a bunch of political hacks.


Maurice Sauvé: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that it is not the board that will appoint members to the advisory committee; it is the
October 11, 1966

minister. If we can judge by the past, members of this house have been satisfied with the appointments to the Canadian council on rural development. I hope that because somebody is connected with a political party he will not be barred from appointment to any advisory committee or board. All we are concerned about is that he has the qualifications for which we are looking.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, the more one looks at the function of the advisory committee as set forth in the bill, the more one is led to the conclusion that this committee is not needed at all. Of what use will it be? It will have no powers. It can only operate under powers given to it by the board. As the minister or anyone else who has worked on boards knows very well, the information of the board itself will be far greater and more penetrating than any information this advisory committee might obtain.
The minister says he is going to pick outstanding men to serve on the committee. Why? Is it to rectify the inadequacy and inefficiency of the members of the board? It is they who will make the decisions, and they should not hide behind an advisory committee. I believe that the advisory committee will degenerate into something upon which the board will lean, and the advisory committee will take the blame rather than the board with respect to decisions of a controversial nature affecting people on the producers' or consumers' side of the grain business.
I see no other reason for this advisory committee being established and no other useful purpose it could carry out. I think the minister has in the back of his mind appointing some kind of committee that will give advice and so on to the board, which is the body that will be charged with administering the act. I fail to see why the board could not of its own volition get on the telephone and contact somebody in Winnipeg in the grain marketing agencies, or anyone else, when it wished to obtain information. We do not need the setting up of an advisory committee to do this.
The committee as set forth in the bill is nothing more than a cover-up for what the minister anticipates will be the shortcomings of the board. The purpose is to make it appear to the people of Canada and the primary producers that the minister and the board are doing a good job and have had the benefit of the advice of an advisory committee. I say this is a cover-up and this type of provision should never have been included in
Canadian Livestock Feed Board clause 15 of the bill. There is no need for this provision in the bill. It is a waste of public money and should be eliminated.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I am at a loss to understand how two members of the same party can reconcile their views. The hon. member for Prince said that this advisory committee is not competent enough or large enough to have the authority he wants it to have, and the last speaker said that the advisory committee is a waste of time and money. Therefore I am really at a loss to see how I can accommodate both members of the same party who have completely contrary views.
With regard to the remarks of the last speaker, there are many advisory committees to boards and other agencies of the government appointed. I do not recall any agency of the government using the advice of its advisory committee to hide behind. In my experience, and it is a very limited one, the Canadian council on rural development and a number of other councils have worked very well. We have a good ARDA administration. These bodies co-operate in an ideal way, and we have found it to be very helpful to have a good advisory committee which is critical of the work being done.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I would hope that this advisory committee would assist the board, which will consist of three to five members, to do its work. I do not see any contradiction between this advisory committee and the board, and I would like my two hon. friends to reconcile their views if they have anything to add to clause 15.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Perhaps I can help to clarify the statement made by the minister following his suggestion that such an advisory committee would be useful in helping the board to do its work. How would it be useful and in what work? What would be the work of the advisory committee? There is to be an advisory group which is to be made up of farmers and producers, similar to the board, but there is no point in establishing a committee which would do the work assigned to the board. They cannot undertake any other work nor can they recommend that any other work be done by the board except that which is referred to it. What sort of an advisory committee will it be when it cannot recommend anything to the board other than what is referred to it? They will be nothing else than yes men, and that is probably what the
October 11. 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board
minister has in mind as being the proper function of this advisory committee. The minister can call this body useful but its usefulness would be for something else that the minister has in mind.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the hon. member for Macleod left the debate Friday afternoon because we discussed this advisory committee at length at that time. May I ask him a question? Is he satisfied with the advisory committee which was set up to assist the Canadian Wheat Board?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: The committee which was established, to which the minister refers consists of representatives who take an active part in performing their duties which are not limited to matters referred to them. They can give advice on any matters, not only those that are referred to them. I wish the minister would look at the Canadian Wheat Board Act and read the functions of the advisory committee which is working in conjunction with the Wheat Board.


Mr. Stewart:: I think perhaps the hon. member for Macleod may not understand the problem that confronts the farmers in the eastern part of Canada.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I know of the problems in the western part of Canada.


John B. Stewart: I am speaking of the areas to which this board's work will apply most directly. Our farmers and farmers' organizations have been very concerned about the administration of the prevailing regulations. They have asked many questions about it. As I understand the purpose of the provisions in this bill regarding the advisory committee, it is to assure that there will be a formalized two-way means of communcation between these agricultural groups and the board. I think it is important in relation to this very complicated matter that any uncertainty and any suspicion that our farmers may have should be eliminated as soon as possible, that as much information as possible should be disseminated among the people for whose advantage this bill is being enacted. I do not think the farmers of eastern Canada, from whose organizations the advisory committee will be drawn, really deserve the appellation, yes-men. I suspect that would not be true of farmers in western Canada either. I think this advisory committee is a necessary link between those who will be served by the board and the board itself. If the hon. member for Macleod had been doing what I have

done, which was to seek information on a very complicated matter on which I have little or no professional competence, I think he would now understand why this advisory committee is so attractive and, indeed, so necessary.


Mr.   Kindi@: May I ask the hon. member what he would do if problems came up that needed the immediate attention of the advisory committee but were not referred to it by the board? The committee would then have no power whatsoever even to bring those matters to the attention of the board. The advisory committee is supposed to grapple with problems on which decisions will be made by the board which they will only have to rubberstamp for the benefit of the consumers and producers. If they can only handle those matters that are referred to them, I do not see how this body can function in seeking solutions to the problems of which the hon. member spoke. The hon. member said that there are lots of problems in his area which he would like to see solved by this body and yet anyone connected with farming or feeding would have no power whatsoever to say to this committee: "Will you recommend this? Will you bring this matter to the attention of the board? Will the committee consider bringing in a recommendation to the board?" He would not be permitted to do it. Therefore, how will this body function to meet the problems the hon. member mentioned and to meet the problems of the farmers of western Canada?


Mr. Baldwin:: May I ask the hon. member
for Macleod a question? I wonder whether the hon. member could not be brought to see the use of this board, having in mind the erratic and peripatetic perambulations of this government and that the more advice they can get the better off they are, consequently, the more advisory boards there are to assist this government, the more hope we have that it will get on to the main stream of the business of the house.


Mr.   Kindi@: I shall be glad to concur in what the hon. member has said. I think there would be some merit in this proposal if it were only on that basis that we were giving it consideration.


John B. Stewart: May I deal with the penultimate hon. member's question by asking a question addressed to the minister? The
October 11, 1966

clause before us contains a subclause which states:
3. The advisory committee shall meet at least once a year at the headquarters of the board, and at such other times and places as It deems necessary in order to carry out Its duties under this act.
Further on, subclause 6 reads as follows:
6. It shall be the duty of the advisory committee
(a) to study and review all matters relating to feed grain transportation, storage, prices and consumption that are referred to it either by the minister or by the board:
My question to the minister is whether it should be our understanding that the only matters that properly can be taken up by the advisory committee at its regular annual meeting or at the other meetings which undoubtedly will take place between the annual meetings will be those referred to in clause 15 (6) of the bill?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, that is the minimum they will have to do. They have an obligation to do at least that and, as I said on Friday, this committee will be established on the same basis as the Canadian council on rural development. It will have about the same power to examine and make reports and recommendations and to give advice not only on problems which are referred to the committee by the board but on all other matters because subclause 6 of clause 15 establishes the minimum duties of the board. There is a compulsion for the committee to do that much at least, so I do not see what the hon. member for Prince is driving at in his argument. This committee has all the necessary powers the hon. member is proposing today or was proposing on Friday. I think we could adopt this clause as it stands now.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: This is an advisory committee. There is a duplication inherent in what the minister has said. The advisory committee is to undertake studies and the board also is to undertake studies. There is going to be a duplication of staff making these two types of studies. Why saddle the taxpayers with this additional cost of bureaucracy? If the advisory committee desires certain information, why could it not draw upon the staff of the board and the information compiled by it rather than have a duplication? The advisory committee, if it is going to make all these studies, will have to have a staff of 10, 15 or 20 people digging into particular items. The board itself will have to have a similar number of people digging into these items.
Canadian Livestock Feed Board
It seems stupid, and it is stupid, to pass legislation requiring this type of duplication and waste of the taxpayers' money. We are setting up something for the board itself and the minister to hide behind rather than assuming their responsibility. This parliament wants the board and the minister to take the responsibility, and not have the minister rise in his place at some later date and say it was the advisory committee that was responsible for something. The committee can be used as a red herring to draw across mistakes, actions and decisions that are rightfully those of the minister and the board.


Maurice Sauvé: May I ask if the hon. member for Macleod has come to an agreement with the hon. member for Prince about the advisory committee? I am lost because they have two different positions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is no doubt in my mind about the value of having an advisory committee. The board becomes an administrative body and there must be some channel through which the producers and others who are affected by the program envisaged in this legislation can have access to the board to present their views so that the committee can make the various studies required and forward its recommendations to the board or to the minister. I think that an advisory committee to this board will fill much the same functions as the advisory committee to the wheat board, which is a very useful avenue of consultation. It provides a two-way street for the exchange of views and it provides the persons who are concerned, in the case of the wheat board, the producers, and in the case of this legislation, the feeders, with machinery whereby they can from time to time place their views before the board.
However, if this board is to be effective it seems to me there are two things that are giving hon. members some concern. I mention them only briefly. The first is the composition of the committee. I do not know whether the minister wants to write it into the legislation-it would be satisfactory to me if we had the minister's assurance on the record-that the persons selected for the advisory committee will be taken from a list of individuals nominated by farm organizations. I have had some experience with watching people being appointed to boards and advisory committees. It is often said that the person in question is selected from a farm organization. It is a very different thing to have someone selected
Oclober 11, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board from an organization and to have someone selected who is a nominee of that organization.
I submit that farm organizations, such as the Farmers Union, the Federation of Agriculture, the Livestock Feeders Association and other groups, will feel much better if the person they have in mind as their spokesman is selected rather than have the minister simply reach into that organization, select an individual and put him on the committee. From the minister's own viewpoint it is better because the minister knows then he has a person who is going to assume some responsibility not only for expressing the views of that organization but for going back to that organization and explaining the program which the board is carrying out. From the minister's viewpoint, therefore, the personnel of this advisory committee become a two-way street, explaining to the minister and the board what the organizations want and explaining to the organizations what it is the minister and the board are trying to do. I hope the minister will give the committee some assurance that these people will be selected from a panel prepared by the farm organizations directly concerned.


Maurice Sauvé: I agreed to this earlier and said we would ask a number of farm organizations to give us three names each. Then one of those would be appointed to the advisory committee. I think I said that in answer to one or two members.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was aware of that. If I may I should like to point out, however, that there are five or seven members to be appointed. I am not suggesting it is enough to allow a farm organization to submit three names and then select one who is going to be on a committee of five or seven. I should like to see the whole committee nominated by the various farm organizations.


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, I agreed to this procedure.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The second point which I think is giving the committee some concern relates to subclause 6 which sets out the duties of the advisory committee. They are restricted. The subclause reads in part as follows:
(a)	to study and review all matters relating to feed grain transportation, storage, prices and consumption that are referred to it either by the minister or by the board; and
(b)	to report to the minister and the board, with any recommendations that the committee considers desirable, the results of each study and review conducted by it.

I am not suggesting the minister is trying to restrict the advisory committee. I am sure what the minister has in mind is that this committee will be able from time to time to make recommendations to him or to the board. However, when you are dealing with legislation someone is going to come along and say, this is beyond the purview of this committee; it has no terms of reference that allow it to make such a recommendation. I know what the minister is up against when lawyers start to draft something. They are very careful how they draft legislation. I am not trying to draft the legislation, but perhaps the minister would be prepared to have paragraph (b) of subclause 6 read this way:
(b) to report to the minister and the board, with any recommendations that the committee considers desirable, the results of each study and review conducted by it and such other matters as it may deem expedient.
I think somewhere in its terms of reference the committee should have authority to make recommendations to the minister and the board outside of anything that has been referred to it. They do not have that power now. Some legalistic individual may raise this matter later and say to the committee: this is beyond your jurisdiction. The committee would be restricted to dealing only with such matters as were referred to it. I am sure that is not what the minister wishes if he wants a committee that is really going to keep him and the board properly informed as to the effectiveness of this legislation.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: In response to a question from the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough I said my interpretation of the clause was that this was the minimum they had to do. A distinction had to be made with regard to the powers and duties of the advisory committee, and it is the duty of the advisory committee to do this much at least. Perhaps the clause could have been drafted differently but my interpretation-and I give this undertaking to the house-is that the advisory committee will have much more responsibility than that required of it as a duty. That is the strict minimum required of the committee. It can inquire into other matters and conduct other studies for the board or the minister as it wishes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister said that subclause 6 is the minimum required, but where is the maximum? I am asking the minister where in clause 15 or anywhere else in the bill it says that the advisory committee has
October 11, 1966

the power to make recommendations to the minister or to the board other than on matters referred to it by the minister or the board?


Maurice Sauvé: There is no limitation as long as the matter deals with the responsibility of the feed grain board. Why should there be a limitation? Either you have a clause which says that an advisory committee is to be set up to do anything it wants or the clause states that it has to fulfil a minimum duty. This advisory committee has a minimum duty to fulfil but nothing would prevent it from doing more as long as what it does relates to Bill No. C-218.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not going to labour this, Mr. Chairman, any further except to say to the minister that the committee has a certain limited duty. So far as the bill is concerned the committee has no power to do other than what the legislation entitles it to do, and all it is entitled to do at the present time is to study and review matters referred to it and to report on those matters to the minister or to the board. It has no other powers or terms of reference.


Mr. Danforlh:: Mr. Chairman, on the same matter that has been brought to the attention of the minister, I understand the undertaking given by the minister that this is the minimum duty of the committee, and that is our understanding. However, that is not set out in the legislation before us. I wonder whether it would meet the wishes of the committee if the minister would accept an amendment to clause 15 (6) (a) in the following terms:
(a) to study and review all matters relating to feed grain transportation, storage, prices and consumption-
Then I insert the words:
-that it may deem necessary, together with those that are referred to it either by the Minister or by the Board;
This would remove the limitation in the proposed legislation and I believe it would grant this committee the powers under which the minister wishes it to administer its particular duties.


Maurice Sauvé: Which subparagraph is this?


Harold Warren Danforth: It commences at line 26 on page 7. May I read how the clause will appear in the bill with the amendment:
(a) to study and review all matters relating to feed grain transportation, storage, prices and consumption that it may deem necessary, together with those that are referred to It either by the Minister or by the Board;
Canadian Livestock Feed Board


Maurice Sauvé: This clarifies the intent and I have no objection to such amendment.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, we have been discussing the advisory committee for a little while and the minister has clearly indicated whom he would like to see on the advisory committee. I as well as some other members would like to state our intentions with regard to those we would not want to see on the committee; then we would know who should be on and who should not. It is not that people may not be qualified to do the job but that they may sometimes be in a peculiar situation.
A while ago some members made reference to the Wheat Board and the minister asked one of the members about the advisory committee to the Wheat Board. I should like to see a wheat board advisory committee, but it all depends on which committee he is talking about. Is he talking about the one to which the Wheat Board has to refer to find out about future prices or the one limited to studying the production side of grain in western Canada or in the producing areas? The latter one is doing a pretty good job. The other one is doing a very good job too, though not necessarily as it affects the Wheat Board.
The Wheat Board guarantees the price and purchase of wheat from the western farmers, but there is also a lot of responsibility on the grain exchanges. To belong to the grain exchange you must be a broker. All of the grain sold by the Wheat Board is bought by brokers, so we are going around in a vicious circle. I am not happy about this part of the picture and I am trying to prevent it in this case.
The members of the advisory committee might be those who were buying the grain or involved in the transportation or marketing of grain. The minister has clearly indicated that these people will not be members and I take his word in that regard. But who is going to be responsible for this following the minister? If I knew he would be minister forever I would sit down because I would trust the minister. But he will not be there forever. This is why I want the good will of the minister to be put on paper.
I wonder whether the minister would accept an amendment to clause 15 (6) (a) which would insert after the word "and" the words:
-no members of this committee shall be permitted to have direct financial or business interests in the matters which this committee will have to deal with.
October 11, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board
They are the matters which are referred to in the clause, namely:
-to study and review all matters relating to feed grain transportation, storage, prices and consumption that are referred to it either by the minister or by the board;


George Robson Muir: Mr. Chairman, before this amendment is entertained I should like to raise a point of order. The hon. member for Megantic made a statement which is not in accordance with the facts. He said that the Canadian Wheat Board guarantees the price to the producer.


Raymond Langlois: Right.


George Robson Muir: That is not right. The Wheat Board pays an initial payment to the producer but the final payment is the result of the price received. I thought he might have left the impression that the western farmer was being subsidized to the extent that his price was guaranteed, and this is not so.


Raymond Langlois: If I might clarify that, I meant that the board guaranteed the initial price. What I am beefing about is: Who is the guy who gets the difference between the two prices? The price is the result of the state of the wheat market, and that depends on the grain exchanges and the brokers. This is what the president of the Wheat Board told me in committee two years ago. They are his words, not mine. I thank the hon. member for clarifying the matter.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the committeee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Danforth) agreed to.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the amendment moved by the member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois), I think first of all that he is not moving it at the proper time. He should wait until we reach paragraph 1 of clause 15. Second, I fail to understand who could sit on the committee, if members of the advisory committee must not have any financial interest. Since the farmers who represent farming organizations and who will sit on that committee very often go in for farming themselves, they indirectly have some financial interests.
To the extent that representatives of farming organizations will sit on that committee,

it seems impossible to me that it could also include business representatives, for the very reason that conflicts of interest might arise. Therefore, I fail to see the necessity of an amendment such as the one you intend to move.


Raymond Langlois: I see the point which the minister is trying to make, namely whether that would imply farmers. I did not intend to imply feeders of eastern Canada. The consumer, properly speaking, is excluded. I mentioned "financial interest" in the field of grain transport, storage and sale. Now, it could be anyone in the agricultural field, but on no consideration would I like to see a farmer interested in the specific fields of grain transport, storage, sale, or milling appointed to that committee. It belongs to the committee to inquire of those people-in order to avoid a clash of interests. And I am not talking from the consumer viewpoint now.


Maurice Sauvé: I should like to give an example to the hon. member for Megantic. Suppose a farmer has his own truck and picks up his grain at the elevator, in Montreal, Quebec or Trois-Rivieres. Then, he is entitled to have a truck for his own purposes. Now, according to your definition or the limitations you set, he could not sit on the committee by reason of his being engaged in transportation, be it for himself or even for his neighbours. I think that you-


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, if he carries grain for his neighbours, he is in business and needs a special licence for that. If he carries grain for himself, then anybody can do that. One simply has to have a driver's licence and a truck licence and anybody knows that the farmer can carry goods if he has a truck licence, provided it is for himself. If he is engaged in a gainful operation, he needs a licence from the transportation board, which is quite another thing. In that case he is a farmer, but he is governed by the transportation board. But I mean all those directly involved, and that is why I referred to those directly engaged in transportation and storage under a special licence. I know such licence is necessary in business, even for farmers.
Some people hold two positions. Well, in that case, it cannot be helped; if they are moonlighters or if they have a profitable business going, they should not be allowed to sit on that committee.
October 11. 1966


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I believe this would only result in administrative red tape, and greatly narrow the scope of this clause. I assured the house that we mean to have representatives of agricultural organizations, and I cannot see why we should further limit the qualifications required of committee members.
Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member for Megantic means well, but I fear very much that he is asking for administrative limitations which would make it very difficult for us to form the advisory committee.


Mr. Fairweather:: I share the minister's view. Not only would we be creating administrative complications but we would obviously be restricting the usefulness of the committee. The minister has given an undertaking that the committee will include representatives of farm groups. Of course they will have a financial interest. That is obvious. I hope the committee will not support the amendment of the hon. member for Megantic. I should like to think there will be room on the advisory committee for knowledgeable people, practical people, as well as for those who have an academic interest in this subject.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: There is no doubt that the mover of this amendment has good intentions in mind but on reflection I think he would agree that this proposal would do far more harm than good. From the way in which it is worded, those with a financial interest whether directly or indirectly-


Raymond Langlois: No. Direct.


Mr.   Kindi@: I am one who is proud to be a farmer and as such I have a financial interest myself. I do not hope to be a member of this committee but there are thousands of others, 6,000 in my own riding, whose experience might well be valuable. Yet this would not be possible if the proposed amendment were adopted in its present form.
There is another point. The minister has told us that an effort will be made to represent the views of a cross-section of the various interests concerned. This seems to be only common sense. If we ask for advice on these important matters we want to hear someone talking straight from the shoulder and from experience. This would not be possible if we observed the qualifications laid down in the amendment. Provided it is an interest at some distance, I think we shall be obliged to
Canadian Livestock Feed Board seek the services of people who have a financial interest. I am sure the information provided by such a committee would prove far more helpful than would otherwise be the case.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Raymond Langlois: I quite understand the hon. member's point of view, as I drafted the amendment rather rapidly. However, its purport seems to have been missed. I do not want to restrict the farmer in any way. What I wanted to eliminate was anyone who would have a conflict of interest. I wish to restrict people who are strictly in the brokerage or transportation business. They are not really interested in farmers; they are only interested in the extra dollars they can earn.
However, the minister has given the assurance that he will keep a close eye on this and that farmers' associations will supply names of nominees for the advisory committee. On his undertaking to do that, I wish to withdraw my amendment and reserve the right to bring the matter up once again if things do not work out in accordance with the minister's intention.


Maurice Rinfret: The
hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) is asking for the withdrawal of the amendment now before the committee. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent for the withdrawal thereof?

Has the hon. member for Megantic unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Langlois, Megantic) withdrawn.


The Chairman:: Shall clause 15 as amended carry?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to have heard the discussion that has taken place because some time ago we who served on the agricultural committee were impressed with the manipulation and manoeuvring of some people in the province from which the hon. member for Megantic comes. There is some merit in considering things that have happened in the past and devising ways and means of eliminating them in the future.
One thing which has not been mentioned much is the relationship between the Canadian Wheat Board, which is the sales
October 11. 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board agency of the western farmer, and the livestock feed grain board which has a purchasing function. Another important matter which was raised in the agricultural committee, during the time the Liberal party was opposed to this type of proposed agency, was the necessity of maintaining equilibrium between the cost factor for the production of western beef and other meat products and that same factor in eastern Canada.
That is a factor which most members of the committee were desirous of maintaining. We do not want this new board to sell grain in eastern Canada at a price much more advantageous than that being paid for grain in western Canada, thus creating a disparity between the two types of production, which in turn could only lead to an elimination of one of the boards, either the wheat board sales agency or the purchasing agency of the livestock feed grain board.
This is something which the advisory committee will have to examine more than once a year. When it knows production levels in western Canada it can relate them to needs in eastern Canada. The number of cattle in each area will be a large determining factor in the amount of purchases which the board will make. For these reasons the minister would be well advised to amend clause 15(3) by deleting the words "shall meet at least once a year" and substituting therefor the words "at least four times a year".
This board will have to make decisions at the beginning of each crop season and again in the fall of the year when the availability of grain is determined. It will also have to determine the amounts of grain to be stored, and in order to maintain the differential between east and west it should review the situation at fairly frequent intervals. If it does not, then one part of Canada will be unhappy and very likely that part will be western Canada.
The minister has said that there will be representatives on the committee from all areas. I hope this is true and that included among them are the areas of beef production in western Canada which have a great stake in the effects of this legislation and should play a primary role in an advisory capacity in maintaining what we believe is a reasonable status quo. Therefore I move as an amendment to clause 15(3), line 11, that the words "at least once a year" be deleted and the following words substituted therefor, "at least four times a year."


Maurice Sauvé: I fail to understand the purport of the amendment because subclause 3 reads, "shall meet at least once a year at the headquarters of the board, and at such other times and places as it deems necessary in order to carry out its duties under this Act." One would think that members of the advisory committee would be responsible enough to have meetings as frequently as possible, and therefore there should be no necessity for the legislation to lay down four mandatory meetings. Members of the committee will have the responsibility of deciding how often meetings should be held. There must be one meeting each year and they can hold as many as they want in addition.


William Arnold Peters: I agree that they can meet as often as they want, but in my opinion the minister fails to see what the function of this advisory committee is really going to be. I think he has not heard some of the representations of western farmers with regard to what this advisory committee is going to do. Maybe he does not know what this advisory committee is going to do. I am of the opinion that the committee, if it is going to discharge its function, will have to make recommendations in respect of how much grain will be bought and what the relationship of the selling price of that grain may be to eastern Canada so that the agency which we are now establishing and the board which buys and sells will not upset the status quo in western Canada.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I am only making this suggestion to the minister for his own protection, because in the initial stages the advisory committee will have to meet to decide on the amount of grain that is going to be planted, again when they know how much the crop is going to be, again when the grain is going to be moved into storage space, and again in the spring of the year when a decision will have to be made when we run into difficulty because of increasing costs because of insufficient grain. At this time I think the minister would be well advised to have advice in respect of how he is going to get grain into the various districts under this measure and with the advantages of the freight assistance which he also is going to be administering.
In the initial stages I think the minister will find there is going to be more interest in how much grain is available, where it will be available, and where it is going to be stored. Incidentally, the board may end up in the spring selling grain if there is too much in
October 11. 1966	COMMONS
storage, and it may be that they would wish to do so through the western agency. So I suggest that initially four meetings is not unreasonable. I agree with the minister that the committee may have to meet more than four times in the initial stage. After the pattern is established it is quite possible that a meeting of this board once a year or only for emergency purposes would be quite sufficient.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. May I read the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Timiskaming. It is moved by Mr. Peters that in clause 15, subclause 3, after the word "meet" the words "at least once a year" be deleted and that the words "at least four times a year" be substituted.
Amendment (Mr. Peters) negatived: yeas, 3; nays, 43.


Mr. Lamberi:: Mr. Chairman, there is one observation I should like to make. It is a very minor point but one which has come up in respect of a number of boards and committees. It is stated that the members will be entitled to be paid, first of all, a per diem allowance while attending meetings. That is fine. Second, it is stated that they shall be paid travelling and living expenses when meeting at some place away from their normal place of residence. If the Board moves around and happens to go to the home city of a member, that member cannot even get a nickel for car fare if he wishes to go by bus. Let us take the city of Montreal. What are you going to decide is the city of Montreal? If the member should live in Ste. Anne he has a trip of 13 or 14 miles into Montreal and he would have to eat at hotels and so on. This is a minor irritant. I do not know how to get around it, but I hope that some method will be found to make this more felicitous for these boards. It is not that their members are looking for anything, but I know, for instance, that when the Board of Broadcast Governors meets outside Ottawa and is involved in a hearing extending over a period of a week or more, the member who happens to be at his place of residence has to buy all his meals and everything else and gets nothing. I would suggest to the minister that he pass on a word to the draftsmen that they make some change in this regard.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, in respect of the efficient functioning of this board which the minister seems so intent upon having established I should like to ask at this stage 23033-539
DEBATES	8527
Canadian Livestock Feed Board whether it is he or the board that is going to make the recommendations concerning who will serve on the advisory committee. I say this for two very obvious reasons. Whoever makes the recommendations and appointments to the advisory committee may be placing the appointees in a position of being subservient to him. This is very important. The minister may laugh, but this is one of the fundamental considerations in human relationships. If this board is to function properly it must be in a position where it can act without owing any debt of gratitude to anyone who may make appointments.
If the minister asks the grain growers or wheat pools to name persons, that would be one type of committee, but if on the other hand he asks the board to be set up under the bill to make recommendations for appointments and he in turn rubberstamps them, then this board will be as useless as any it is possible to create.


Maurice Sauvé: As I said earlier, the members of the committee would be appointed by the Governor in Council and names would be suggested by the farm organizations. They would be picked from the lists proposed by the farm organizations.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, the only concern I have, although I shall not make an issue of it at this time, is my fear that the number of persons on the advisory committee may not be sufficient when we take into consideration the long distances involved and the fact that there are six provinces in which this board will have jurisdiction over livestock feed. Perhaps the seven members of this committee who will carry out the provisions of the bill will not be able to do so efficiently because of the vast areas involved. The province of British Columbia, the maritime provinces and Quebec and Ontario are very much interested in the provisions of this bill. If we allocate one member to each of these provinces, other provinces which have large rural areas will not be efficiently represented. I should like to direct this matter to the minister's attention. Was due consideration given to this aspect of the situation and does the minister feel that five or seven members will be enough to carry out these duties?


Maurice Sauvé: Past experience has indicated that for the purpose of appointing representatives of this kind there are regions in Canada and it has been customary to appoint one or
8528	COMMONS
Canadian Livestock Feed Board two representatives for the Atlantic provinces. For this reason we felt that five or seven members could look after all our regions.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 16-Appropriations.


Mr. Jorgenson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two points in regard to clause 16, which suggests that all expenditures under this act, including amounts required for payments related to the cost of feed grain transportation, payment of salaries and other expenses shall be appropriated by parliament. During the course of this debate and on numerous prior occasions members of this house have likened the proposed eastern feed grain agency to the Canadian Wheat Board in that it will function on behalf of the eastern farmers in a way similar to the manner in which the Canadian Wheat Board functions on behalf of the western farmers.
Let me point out one or two significant differences. I think the minister already knows what I have in mind. So far as the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned, expenses incurred by the board, including salaries, are paid from moneys accruing from the sale of grain. In other words, the farmers of western Canada are paying for the cost of operating that board. They are also paying the freight on that grain which moves into the terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur.
In those respects there is a considerable difference between the operations of these two boards. I do not intend to move an amendment to change this situation or even criticize it, but I do point out that there is a considerable difference between the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board and the proposed operations of this board which will be acting on behalf of eastern farmers.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Having regard to costs, does the minister visualize that the proposed board will pay the price set by the Wheat Board for feed grain or does he visualize the use of government funds to set up a monopoly to fight the Canadian Wheat Board which by statute is now operating in the interests of western farmers?


Maurice Sauvé: On Thursday and Friday last I gave several long explanations as to how the board will act and when it will act as a buyer or seller. When it does so it will purchase its grain on the Winnipeg grain exchange. It will

DEBATES	October 11, 1966
act as a broker but will never deal directly with the Canadian Wheat Board. I envisage no difficulty in this regard.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Is it contemplated that the board will buy on the open market?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes.


Harold Warren Danforth: Clause 16 indicates how moneys are to be allocated. Having studied clause 6(a), I fail to understand why some of these funds cannot be used to equalize freight costs from the province of Ontario to the maritime provinces. Can the minister explain whether the board will have the power to authorize the expenditure of money for this specific purpose?


Maurice Sauvé: I have already suggested that the board will have two main functions, to pay for transportation costs and storage and, when necessary, to act as a broker in the buying and selling of feed grain. I explained to my hon. friend on Friday that clause 6 (a)(i>
and (ii) gives the board the authority to pay for the transportation costs of corn and locally produced grain. I have not changed my mind since that time.


Harold Warren Danforth: I am sure the minister appreciates that this situation is very important to me. He states that he explained to me on Friday that the board would be authorized to make payments relating to the cost of feed grain transportation. Under present government policy there is no subsidy paid on Ontario feed grains moving east. Has the minister indicated to me now that under the provisions of this legislation the board or the committee will have the authority to institute this government policy of equalizing transportation costs? Is that what the minister has said to me?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes.


George Robson Muir: Subclause 4 of clause 16 states that no payment out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 2 shall exceed $10 million. Does that mean that the total cost in one year could be $10 million in regard to the provision of rented or constructed storage?


Maurice Sauvé: That refers only to the cost of its operations as a broker in the buying and selling of feed grain and has nothing to do with transportation or storage.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: 
Maurice Sauvé: No.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: There are a number of people in British Columbia, for example, in the Okanagan valley, who are and will be feeding cattle. I should like to ask if they will be able to haul their cattle into Alberta and sell them. Some farmers haul their cattle into Alberta and sell them. Some buy feed from other farmers and feed the cattle in British Columbia. Are they going to be denied that privilege? Is it the purpose of this bill to put them all out of business, or what is the intention of the minister?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not the
purpose of this bill to put them out of business.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Will this system be interfered with? Will they be able to operate as they have and buy their feed in Alberta?


Maurice Sauvé: That is what they do now.


Mr.   Kindi@: In other words, there will be a continuation of the practice followed at the present time?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes.


Harold Warren Danforth: Once again, Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister that clause 16 refers to section 8 and the fact that expenses incurred under section 8 will be alleviated by this particular clause.
I would ask the minister whether over the week end he had an opportunity to pursue the difference in interpretation between himself and myself in this regard. Does the minister agree in particular with my interpretation in respect of clause 8?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I found that we were both right. I will read a note which I have received in this regard. The intent of this bill as drafted is for the board to achieve its objectives by co-ordination of the various interests presently involved and perfecting the existing devices at its disposal before embarking on the involved marketing operations provided for in clause 8. If these methods fail to achieve the objectives of the bill 23033-5391
DEBATES	8529
Canadian Livestock Feed Board clause 8 can be resorted to, but it is intended that its objectives could then be attained by the marketing of feed grains originating in the prairies. This bill does not limit the board to the purchase of grain originating in the designated area but it is not intended it would have to-resort to the purchase and sale of local feed grains, because its objectives in this area could be accomplished by the use of the powers granted in 6 (a), and I would see no objection to leaving the board with the ability to resort to this broader interpretation if it means the accomplishment of its objectives. So we were both right, and I am quite satisfied with this interpretation.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Chairman, would the minister now clarify from whom the board will be receiving its import licences?


Maurice Sauvé: The Canadian Wheat Board.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question on this clause. Clause 16 (1) (a) refers to payments related to the cost of feed grain transportation or the cost of feed grain storage made under paragraph (a) of section 6. We are to assume then that the costs of the feed grain subsidy program will be borne under this program?


Maurice Sauvé: That is right.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: In other legislation that is receiving the attention of members of the house at the present time the suggestion is made-I do not want to presume what the final legislation will be-that the intention of the legislation is to do away with all freight subsidies, that the railways in effect will be deriving their revenue solely from the competitive forces existing within the transportation industry. Are we to conclude that by virtue of this legislation this will be the one exception to the proposed legislation dealing with transportation?


Maurice Sauvé: This is not a subsidy to the railways; it is a subsidy to the feeders. In the other bill it is a subsidy to the railways, if I interpret that bill correctly.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I did not quite hear the minister. I wonder whether he would mind repeating what he said.


Maurice Sauvé: Under this legislation it is a subsidy to the feeders, to the farmers; it is not a subsidy to the railways. Under the legislation on transportation it is a subsidy to the railways and not to the users.
October 11, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: In that case, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me-and I do not wish to enter into a debate on the transportation legislation-that in view of the minister's answer it will be possible to effect all sorts of subsidies by simply calling them subsidies to somebody else rather than to the railways. If that is the case, the effect of the transportation legislation will be completely nullified.


Maurice Sauvé: No, Mr. Chairman. This has never been a subsidy to the railways. This is included in the bill that the feeder receives. He receives a bill for the total amount of his order and there is always an indication of "less subsidy for transportation". It is deducted directly from the bill. The railways are not affected at all by this provision. The railways do not know directly anything about the $19 million or $20 million that we are spending here because it is the brokers and the dealers who receive the subsidy, not the railways.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I understand the minister's point perfectly, but the point I am attempting to make is that in future subsidies to the railways, and I still say they are subsidies to the railways in a sense, can be camouflaged in many ways by suggesting that they are subsidies to somebody else. Therefore the effects of the transportation legislation will be nullified.


Maurice Sauvé: More of this commodity has been moving east by ship than by rail, so there could be an argument on whether it is a subsidy on rail or ship.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a related question on clause 16 (I) (a). On Friday last we were discussing transportation and I suggested to the minister that it would be cheaper to move this commodity by boat. The minister said that an arrangement was being made whereby the railways would transport it at the same cost. Would the minister give us some details of this plan?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The two national railways have proposed agreed charges to the maritime feed manufacturers on certain quantities on a year-round basis. They have offered the same thing to the Quebec feed manufacturers. These rates are competitive with water transportation and other transportation costs.


George Robson Muir: This is from Fort William only?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, from Fort William.
IMr. Sauv6.1


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, paragraph (a) of clause 16 provides that these funds are to be used for the cost of feed grain transportation and any other costs that are involved. Then there is a reversion to the equalization of prices between east and west. In other words, the minister has devised a system to pool and use the taxpayers' dollar to overcome the geographic and economic advantages of location in relation to feed supplies. He may be able to justify it, but I certainly cannot understand this provision. The people in western Canada and British Columbia are close to the supply, and if they take advantage of this fact and purchase feed from the Wheat Board or from whatever source it is available and then have to pay the shot for the equalized cost for eastern feeders, I can see that the feeders in British Columbia will be coming before the advisory committee to register their complaints.
* (5:30 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: I explained in detail the problems of Canadian agriculture and the problems of the feed grain board on Thursday and Friday when I introduced the bill. I never said that Bill C-218 would solve all the problems of eastern agriculture. This bill is only a part of the national agricultural policy which has to be arrived at by agreement between the provinces and the federal government. I do not want to repeat all that has been said but we are implementing through this board policies which have been voted for by parliament since 1941. We are therefore not changing anything except to try to improve the situation of feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia. This will not alter the pattern of agricultural production in this country.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Has the minister any figures in front of him which would portray to us the method which he intends to use in the equalization of prices between eastern and western Canada?


Maurice Sauvé: What we have done so far and what we intend to do is to try to pay all transportation costs-we have a special definition for transportation costs-from Port Arthur and Fort William to eastern destinations. This would in effect bring the grain to its destination at the same cost to the farmer as if he had bought it at Fort William.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
October 11. 1986	COMMONS
On clause 17-Advances.
Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister could help me with a problem I have concerning the integration of clause 17 with clause 16 and perhaps with other clauses. Clause 17 seems to be a blanket authorization for the Governor in Council to make advances to the board on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. Is this authorization for the Governor in Council as wide as it appears to be or is it confined by clause 16? For example, are those to be only advances appropriated by parliament under clause 16 (1) or is this money to come out of moneys under clause 16 (2) paid out of the consolidated revenue fund? In other words, can the minister tell me whether this is a blanket clause enabling a raid to be made for advance purposes upon the consolidated revenue fund and by-passing parliament?


Maurice Sauvé: As the hon. member knows, the board will have two functions. The first function will be to administer the funds voted by parliament for transportation and storage costs. In that sense clause 17 deals with that. Clause 16 deals with the operation of the board as a broker with certain limitations. Therefore we need clause 17 if we want to enable the board to administer the $20 million annually voted by parliament.


Richard Albert Bell: I should like the minister to clarify this point, that no advance may be made under clause 17 which is not already authorized under clause 16.


Maurice Sauvé: Under clause 16 the government can lend money to the board. Clause 17 also gives this authorization. Clause 17 authorizes the payment of the $19 million or $20 million transportation subsidy plus the $10 million for the fund, plus any amount that might be borrowed by the board to pursue its aims and obligations under the other provisions in clause 16.


Richard Albert Bell: I am not sure the minister has understood my point. I should like the minister's assurance that there is no independent authority under clause 17. What I want to ascertain is that clause 17 carries with it only the authority which is contained in preceding or subsequent clauses, that it does not stand on its own and does not give a blank cheque to the board and to the Governor in Council to make advances of any amounts on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon, thereby by-passing parliament. The minister will understand that if
DEBATES	8531
Canadian Livestock Feed Board this authority and power are confined to the financial provisions under clause 16 then I have no objection. But if this does constitute some power which goes away beyond that and gives an independent and separate authority, then I think members of this house have reason to take exception.


Maurice Sauvé: Clause 16 (1) (a) provides for subsidies out of the annual appropriation, that is, $20 million. Clause 16 (4) provides for a fund of $10 million, and clause 17 provides for loans on terms and conditions established by the Governor in Council.


Richard Albert Bell: Then are we to understand that these loans are in addition to and separate and distinct from the moneys appropriated by parliament and the $10 million covered under clause 16? Is this in fact a blank cheque to the government to make loans of any amount on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon?


Maurice Sauvé: No, as long as the board acts as a broker if need be. It is only so if the board has to act as a broker, in which case there is a limited amount of $10 million. If for one reason or another this is not sufficient, then the board can borrow from the Minister of Finance additional amounts of money. However, the intention was to try to limit the funds at the disposal of the board to $10 million. We do not feel we will need more than $10 million because, as you know, these operations are done within a very short period of time. Buying and selling are done practically in the same week. As soon as you collect for what you have sold you can pay for what you bought, and there is a very limited amount of time between those operations. It is therefore not expected that the board will need more than $10 million for its operations. Nevertheless there is a provision there which authorizes the Minister of Finance to lend money on conditions set down by the Governor in Council.


Richard Albert Bell: As usual the minister has been very clever and shrewd. He skated all around the issue. I want to put it to him immediately and directly. This clause does convey a power and authority in the governor in council to make advances of an unlimited amount which are not provided for in the previous clause 16. That is capable of a simple and direct answer.


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, that is what I said.
8532	COMMONS
Canadian Livestock Feed Board


Thomas Miller Bell: So the answer to that is yes. I think there may be other hon. members who want to express some views in relation to this. So far as I am concerned I am prepared to vote against any clause which gives such unlimited arbitrary power to the Governor in Council. The very essence of parliament is that it maintains and controls the right to vote the money that is necessary for the operation of the government and all the instruments of government. If the minister says that $10 million is not enough, that $20 million is necessary, then I will go along with him in voting $20 million, but I am not prepared to vote with him and say that he can have a blank cheque and can by-pass parliament whenever he and his colleagues sitting in the secrecy of the Privy Council chamber think it expedient to do so.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is precisely on this point that I should like to add some comments. I certainly underline all that has been said by my colleague from Carleton. The interpretation of clause 16(2) takes us back to clause 8(1) which frankly authorizes this board to go into the grain market and gamble on market conditions. It is authorized to go into the market and buy and sell. Not only is it authorized to buy and sell feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia but, in competition with the Canadian Wheat Board, to buy feed grain in the prairie provinces. This power is clearly spelled out in the legislation.
I should like to refer the minister, if I may, to clause 8(1) which deals with buying or entering into contracts or agreements for the purchase of feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia and in the designated area of the Wheat Board. But it is still in competition with the Wheat Board because when we come to clause 19 concerning the regulations we see that the Governor in Council has authority to deem a grade of wheat grown in the designated area not to be a feed grain. When we come to clause 19 I shall discuss this bill that is not before us.
In any event, as my colleague from Carleton has said, this clause authorizes the board to gamble on feed grain. It is precisely the underwriting of this gamble to which members of this house may have some objection. If the minister gives us a finite amount, then that is all right and the house may be prepared to give its agreement. However, as has been clearly pointed out, clause 17 authorizes the Governor in Council to write a

DEBATES	October 11, 1966
blank cheque. We all hope that the board will operate successfully. We all hope there will not be such stupendous losses that the moneys provided for under clause 16 will not be sufficient. There is no guarantee of that, none at all, particularly for the purposes under clause 8(1). Therefore there has to be more than just the safeguard of an annual report to parliament.
I want to say something too about clause 19 and the laying on the table of the regulations that may be made. In so many places in these acts we have acts which are not before parliament, but we will come to that in greater detail during consideration of clause 19. I share the opinion of my colleague from Carleton and I would oppose this clause.


Mr. Olson:: I wonder if the minister really meant what he said or what the hon. member for Carleton interpreted his remarks to mean? Surely the minister does not suggest there will be a statutory provision for an unlimited amount to be advanced to this feed grain agency?


Thomas Miller Bell: That is precisely what he did say.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If it is the intent of the government to provide for an unlimited statutory amount, I would object to it.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is what he said.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If, on the other hand, a provision were written into Bill No. C-218 whereby the Governor in Council could make advances and an item were put in the estimates to cover those advances, that item would come before this house for authorization. This would be a different thing. This is the reason I asked if the minister meant to say that clause 17 would be statutory authority for any amount. Surely any additional amount over what is provided under clause 16 would have to be in the estimates and would require the approval of the house.
Hon. members know that statutory amounts do not require approval of the committee of supply because there is a previous authority. Surely the minister is not suggesting that we should now give an over-all authority for all time to come until the statute is repealed. This would constitute a blank cheque. Surely any additional amount beyond what is provided under clause 16 must be included in the estimates of the department or the Department of Finance. Would the
October 11, 1968	COMMONS
minister reconsider his answer and distinguish between how these advances will be made and what the law will be in so far as the procedure in this house is concerned?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am anxious to see this bill passed, but I wonder if we could not stand this section? With great respect, I am quite sure the minister is not correct in what he said. I do not see how a statute which restricts monetary expenditure in other parts can come along a little later and give a blanket authority to the Governor in Council. This section must be copied out of other statutes and we should interpret on the basis of the earlier sections. I suggest that we stand the clause and that the minister get advice on this because an amendment may be needed to make it subject to the earlier clauses if my interpretation is not correct.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If there is to be advice taken from the law officers of the crown with regard to clause 17 and its relationship to clause 16, I should like to point out the possible need for a further revision to that suggested by my colleague from Royal. In line 13 there is an indication that no payment can be made out of the consolidated revenue fund exceeding $10 million and, inter alia, that any amount can be advanced under clause 17. Payments out under clause 16 could readily exceed, $460 million if $450 million were advanced under clause 17 because under subclause (4) (a) we have a $10 million excess. If the advances under clause 17 are, $450 million, then the payments could exceed $460 million. There is no authority for the $450 million or any limit on the amount, and this is what we are trying to get at. I strongly urge upon the minister, as suggested by my colleague from Royal, that we stand this clause for advice from the law officers and that we go on with the others.


Maurice Sauvé: I agree.


Mr.   Kindi@: Is the minister prepared to make a statement?


Maurice Sauvé: I said I was agreeable to have the clause stand.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that clause 17 stands?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Clause 18 agreed to.
DEBATES	8533
Canadian Livestock Feed Board [DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
On clause 19-Regulations.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago I used the phrase, "act which is not before us." This is precisely what happenes under most of these acts which are of some length and where there is a nice, beautiful sounding clause concerning regulations. However, those who have some concern about the rights of individuals examine all the fine print in this particular clause. I am not going to say anything about clause 19(a) but I am going to talk about 19(b) and also 19(c), as well as some subsequent sub clauses.
First of all, let us look at what section 8 authorizes the board to do. The Governor in Council may make regulations which authorize the board to exercise the powers conferred on it by section 8 for any period or periods prescribed by the regulations, but in no case shall any period so prescribed be of a duration that is less than the remainder of the crop year in which such regulation is made. Section 8 tells us that the board may go into the buying and selling of feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia and in the designated areas, which are the prairie provinces. Beyond the prairie provinces, through the agency of the Canadian Wheat Board it has many other powers.
I am wondering why it is that so many of these regulations are considered to be necessary and yet parliament never gets the chance to look at them. There is the strongest case here for the introduction into our system in the House of Commons of a committee to review delegated powers. There is such a body in the United Kingdom, and I am sure that is one example we might copy. After all, under the powers conferred by clause 19 the Governor in Council may make a whole spate of regulations. True enough, he must publish them, but the chances of accountability are extremely rare. Action may be taken within the four corners of this act and this may be quite at cross-purposes with the intention of parliament. It may also infringe upon the rights of individuals. All sorts of things may happen under these regulations and no one is called to account.
This is not the first time I have spoken about this, Mr. Chairman. It is not because I am expert in agricultural matters that I now rise to make this protest; it is because of the feeling of many of my confreres in the legal profession that under these omnibus-type
8534	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion clauses and as a result at the peculiar language that is used by draftsmen we are in effect giving carte blanche almost to a new act, if such were desired.
Perhaps I am looking at the gloomy side but there have been far too many unfortunate examples in the past under various types of legislation where sweeping powers have been given to the Governor in Council. And, let us face it, this legislation gives to the board the power to make regulations. It recommends them to the minister, who is nominated by the Governor in Council to be responsible for the act. They are then taken to the committee of the cabinet on orders in council, the stamp of approval is put on them and, lo and behold, that is the law. Subsequently somebody may really get hurt, and if he is long with patience, long with purse and a most determined man he may be prepared to take the board to court. We have seen cases in the past where individuals have taken the wheat board to court. The wheat board has done many good things, but it has also been guilty in the past of many transgressions. Nevertheless, there are still some regulations which I think cry out for correction.
This is why I must raise objection at this time to the sweeping powers which are being given to boards to make their own regulations, the boards not being accountable for them. I would like the minister to go so far as to agree to bring in an amendment that any regulations that are made shall be tabled in the house. Within the last two years we have had examples of this. Some of the minister's colleagues have recognized the necessity for bringing these regulations before parliament so that parliament can examine them. I think that an amendment could be drafted by way of a proviso to the clause that these regulations shall be brought in and tabled within 15 days of their coming into effect if parliament is sitting and, if not, within 10 days after parliament next sits.
I would also suggest, Mr. Chairman, that under these regulations there is authority to bring this board into conflict with the Canadian Wheat Board in the designated areas. Under subclause (c) there is power to designate any grade of wheat grown in the designated area not to be a feed grain. It would be an eminently satisfying situation, to be sure, to have the Wheat Board declare that a certain quality of wheat shall be deemed to be feed wheat and then have this particular board turn round and say no, it is

DEBATES	October 11. 1966
not to be so deemed. The power to do just that is there.
What I should like to know is why it is deemed that the board should have this power which has been specifically spelt out. Beyond this, the board can determine whether any grain or grain product is to be a feed grain. To go from the sublime to the ridiculous, it could, for example, pick No. 1 northern wheat.
In addition, according to the definitions clause "livestock" means cattle, sheep, swine and poultry and such other classes of livestock as may be designed by regulation as livestock. I am wondering what other livestock the minister may be thinking of.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being six o'clock, and in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, I do now leave the chair.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty,
pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) Old Age Security -inquiry as to legislation this session; the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), Finance-inquiry as to whether the minister has considered fighting inflation through tax reductions; the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) Agriculture-inquiry as to price of manufacturing milk.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the indulgence of the house to consent to a suspension of the sitting until eight o'clock this evening.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house
agree to suspend this sitting from now until eight o'clock this evening?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The committee will resume its work at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At 6.05 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended.
October 11, 1966
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p. m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. The house will resume the business that was interrupted at six o'clock.



CANADIAN LIVESTOCK FEED BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-218, to provide assistance to livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia-Mr. Sauve-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee adjourned at six o'clock we were considering clause 19.
On clause 19-Regulations.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My remaining remarks will deal with paragraph (e), and again I would like to put on record the gist of remarks I have made in the past concerning omnibus clauses and their general wording with regard to regulations. In legislation this is usually the basket provision, if I may use that term. If anything has not been dealt with prior to it, either in the definitions clause or the regulations already spelled out in the bill, then in actual fact the proposed board is given power, under the authority of the governor in council, to make regulations with respect to any other matter concerning which the minister deems regulations necessary or desirable to carry out the provisions of the bill.
I hope that some day we shall reach the point when we do not have to include this type of basket provision in legislation. It is a provision to which resort is made to cover up many difficulties, and is a great extension of the powers granted to a board. It was with this type of provision I was particularly concerned in my original remarks when I suggested we should establish a committee of the house which would annually review all such delegated power, and all such regulations, because in actual fact the power includes authority to make regulations retroactive, and it is a power over which parliament has no control.
During the dinner interval I hope the minister had an opportunity to consult with his officials, and perhaps the law officers of the crown with regard to an amendment which would stipulate that as regulations are made 23033-540

Canadian Livestock Feed Board they should be tabled in the house. I also hope he has had consultation with regard to clause 17 which was discussed earlier in the afternoon.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, supplementary or complementary to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, I would hope that the minister and the law officers of the crown would give serious consideration to provision for the tabling of regulations made under this legislation at regular intervals, say every year, every six months, or something like that.
During the lifetime of this and other parliaments we have had unfortunate examples of authority being given to make regulations, such regulations, when made, covering a wider scope than was ever intended. One example in particular which comes to my mind is the Export and Import Permits Act, which was passed a number of years ago. As all debates on it clearly show, it was originally intended to prevent the sale of war materials and strategic equipment to potential enemy countries and to parts of the world where there was danger that conflicts might arise.
Just about this time last fall, or slightly later in the year, we saw where the government chose to digress from the intention of that act, to use it for the purpose of carrying out economic warfare for political considerations against a de facto government in another part of the world, one which our government did not favour. I refer to the government of Southern Rhodesia, its method of attaining independence and its internal policies.
Our government's objective may well have been commendable, but that is not the point at argument. The fact is that regulations were made under the Export and Import Permits Act for purposes other than were orginally intended by the legislation.
As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Edmonton West, under the provisions of this bill the minister has power to make all sorts of regulations, without the necessity to table them or have them reviewed from time to time by parliament. But this bill is not unique in that regard. It is a legislative tendency which governments seem to acquire from time to time. More and more we see a growing tendency to infringe on the functions and cut away the power of parliament to review such matters. Like the hon. member for Edmonton West, I hope the
October 11, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board minister will consider accepting an amendment providing for the regulations to be tabled and reviewed from time to time by parliament.
As I say, I hope such amendments could be made to apply to all other acts which provide for regulations to be made under a sort of catch-all, blanket provision. This is a bad precedent which has crept into our legislation over a number of years, and should not be continued any further.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with clause 19(a) which says that the governor in council may make regulations prescribing for payments related to the cost of feed grain storage and transportation, and I shall return again to the matter of feed grain transportation.
On several occasions during the past few years I have attempted to ascertain, from the departmental officials responsible for the administration of the feed grain assistance legislation, exactly to what areas this assistance was being applied. There are varied groups of producers in eastern Canada. Some can be classified as legitimate producers, and others as not so legitimate. Canada Packers, Swift and Burns all have feed lots in this part of the country, as they also have in other parts of Canada; and there are other commercial interests involved. For example, I am sure E. P. Taylor gets the benefit of this legislation.
I suggest that the board which has the responsibility for administering this program should devise a system whereby it could be determined where these payments go, and how much is being received by different farmers in the form of subsidies, so that we can have an idea of who is getting the most assistance from the program.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I wonder whether the minister would undertake to give us his assurance that he will endeavour to discuss this matter with the board to see whether such a program can be devised, and whether it will be possible to isolate the various producers. Also I wonder whether he would be able to give us some information regarding how much they are receiving in the way of assistance.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, on Thursday night and Friday afternoon I spoke of this problem and assured the house that our intention was to find ways and means to help

the family farm, and try to avoid large benefits being received by the integrators. We have figures which show they derive their benefits mostly in the form of subsidies paid for transportation costs.
So far as clause 19 and the orders in council are concerned, I think hon. members know all these orders in council are published in the Canada Gazette. As I have said, we want to protect the interests of everybody. There is no sinister intent on the part of the board to deprive citizens of their rights. 1 do not think there is any way in which this board can do more harm than others operating under a similar provision, but if hon. members feel there is some danger and are ready to suggest an amendment- although I do not see what it will add-I have no objections to anything that is precise.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I was not inferring that the government had any sinister plan. I think my colleague the hon. member for Edmonton West and myself had in mind that there has been a growing tendency, not just now but over a number of years, to have these regulations as catch-all regulations. We suggest or hope that perhaps the minister might entertain an amendment to these regulations, so that we would have a starting point which would be subject to review. I am delighted to hear that the minister would give consideration to an amendment which might be made in that regard. I understand my colleague the hon. member for Edmonton West is preparing such an amendment.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, while the hon. member for Edmonton West is exercising his very considerable intellectual talents on that proposition, may I direct my remarks entirely to paragraph (d) which gives power to the governor in council to make regulations designating any city in eastern Canada to be the city in which the headquarters of the board be situated. Now, sir, I have a very great respect for all the cities in eastern Canada, as I have for those in western Canada, but there is only one national capital.
I venture to suggest that the headquarters of the board should be in the national capital. The national capital, Ottawa, has a dual distinction; first it is the shire town or county town of the county of Carleton and, second, it is the capital of Canada. Quite seriously I do believe that this dissipation of the various functions of government is not a wise or
October 11. 1966

sound operation, and I think there should be a concentration of government within the national capital region.
Although I do not propose to move an amendment, I would venture to suggest also that the regulation should be one which would make it clear that the city in eastern Canada shall be that city which for a long period has been designated as the national capital of Canada.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, under clause 19 I too am going to press that there be some parliamentary consideration of any regulations under which this new legislation shall be administered. I would hope the minister would be well aware of the tremendous power being vested in this board. I would hope also the minister would be aware that, under the regulations, this particular board is intruding into almost every segment of the feed grain business, right from the primary producer up to the ultimate sale to the one who uses it to finish livestock.
Not only does it intrude into every segment of the business but, if the terms of clause 17 are as they appear, this board can intrude into the normal business of grain handling, with unlimited funds. Because of this it could cause serious havoc in the normal grain channels. Surely the object of this legislation is merely to stabilize grain prices in eastern Canada and British Columbia, to make sure that there is not an undue rise and fall and to make sure there is not an artificial scarcity promoted for the prime purpose of upping the prices.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, at the very root of this bill is a desire to accomplish this with a minimum amount of uprooting of the normal function of the grain trade. I think it would be a sad thing indeed if because of the regulations there was a disruption to any great degree. I am sure the minister is well aware, that, under the terms of this bill we see before us, not only is this board allowed to take whatever steps it deems necessary in the buying, selling, transporting or storing of all feed grains used in eastern Canada, but under the regulations as set out in this bill it also has the power to require any segment of the grain trade, any merchant, any co-operative, or any company engaged in any part of the four specific undertakings where grain is concerned, to make available to it at any time the complete transactions they have undertaken in this particular trade.
23033-540J
Canadian Livestock Feed Board
At any time the board can demand to see the books; in other words, it can intrude into the innermost business of any segment of the grain trade. Surely an intrusion to this degree into any industry in Canada must be regarded with a great deal of caution. It is because of these absolute powers which are granted under the terms and provisions of this particular bill that I am very insistent that parliament have some control over and some opportunity to peruse most carefully the regulations under which the industry will be required to act, when this bill we have before us comes into effect.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I have had an opportunity to re-read the remarks I was making before the dinner adjournment. I had asked the minister a question with regard to the possible extension of the classes of livestock defined in the bill. Perhaps he could supply me with information concerning what types, besides those enumerated in the definition clause on page 2, might be deemed to be livestock.
e (8:20 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I think the definition which appears in clause 2(h) indicates clearly that livestock means cattle, sheep, swine and so on, and other classes of livestock as may be designated by regulation. This would include I suppose horses and rabbits.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And goats?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, I suppose goats, too.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the minister said a few moments ago he would be willing to accept an amendment to clause 19 which would give effect to the suggestions of hon. members regarding the right of parliament to review the regulations that might be adopted. The argument was advanced that what might be called a second piece of legislation comes into effect as a result of the regulations adopted following the passage of this bill.
If the minister is willing to accept my suggestion I should like to suggest that section 19 be amended by adding the following words after the word "regulations" in the first line:
-subject to annual review by the House of Commons or a committee of the House of Commons,-
Clause 19 following the adoption of this amendment would read:
The governor in council may make regulations, subject to annual review by the House of Commons or a committee of the House of Commons,-
October 11, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board
This would be followed by that which now appears in the paragraphs and subparagraphs of clause 19. Perhaps the minister would be prepared to move that amendment, if it is acceptable.


Maurice Sauvé: I understand another hon. member is drafting an amendment to this clause. I should like to have that before commenting, and perhaps it could be submitted in writing.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I shall be glad to send the minister a copy of the amendment I intend to propose. I would move:
That the period after the word "act" in line 17 of clause 19 be deleted and there be added the following proviso:
''Provided that any such regulation or regulations shall be tabled in parliament within ten days of the approval thereof by the governor in council, providing that parliament shall then be in session, otherwise within the first five days after the commencement of the next ensuing session of parliament".


Maurice Sauvé: In principle that is exactly what the Regulations Act, 1950, chapter 235 says. It states:
Every regulation shall be laid before parliament within 15 days after it is published in the Canada Gazette or, if parliament is not then in session, within 15 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session.
That requirement is already included in the Regulations Act and I do not see that we would be improving the situation by including this requirement in the bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The difficulty I find in this regard is in keeping up with the items that are tabled. There is no indication in Votes and Proceedings as to when these things were tabled. Since we are dealing with an agricultural subject at this time, let me suggest that in order to find these regulations one must search for a tiny needle in a haystack. I have always felt that a central record of these regulations should be kept at the Library of Parliament, in chronological order. Otherwise one has to ge through Votes and Proceedings for a whole year to find when ministers of the crown tabled regulations, reports or returns as required by law.
Earlier this year one of the minister's colleagues was prepared to accept an amendment in order to improve an important piece of legislation, requiring these regulations to be formally tabled and drawn to our attention. I am aware that there exist these anterior regulations of a general nature. If the

minister feels my amendment is redundant I do not intend to press it or maintain a standing fight. This is something I wanted to bring to the attention of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may say a word about the historical background of the Regulations Act to which the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development has referred. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will recall very well that this is really a monument to the present Leader of the Official Opposition. I am surprised that the hon. member for Edmonton West is not aware of that fact.
Years ago the Leader of the Opposition lectured this house frequently about what he called government by order in council, and he persuaded Mr. St. Laurent, who was then the prime minister, that these orders in council having the force of law should be made public regularly. I think that right hon. gentleman is entitled to some credit for the Regulations Act. I also think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who was a vigilant member of the house in those days, is entitled to some credit.


Mr. Knowles:: Please remember that I am still here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are here again, but there was an interval.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All I can say is such an interval would be good for every member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In any event, let me proceed with my historical reminiscence. The Regulations Act required the publication of every regulation that had the force of law. It also required that these regulations be consolidated regularly and published in consecutive fashion. To find one you do not have to look for a needle in a haystack. Indeed, this is not a haystack at all; there is a very well organized compilation of statutory orders and regulations which are available for anyone to read. We know not merely what the law is, directly, as legislated, but what the law is by virtue of the power of regulation given by parliament.
It does not seem to me that by the adoption of the hon. member's amendment we would be changing the law at all. This statute is already in effect, and therefore the proposed amendment is redundant and unnecessary because of the Regulations Act.
Oclober 11, 1966
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that my amendment takes the law one step further in that it requires regulations to be tabled within ten days of approval. The present statute requires that the regulations passed during the year be tabled at the beginning of the next session of parliament. I am subject to correction, but it seems to me that this is the correct interpretation. If I am wrong, I hope the minister can correct me.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I think I should read section 7 of the Regulations Act, chapter 235 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952:
Every regulation shall be laid before parliament within 15 days after it is published in the Canada Gazette or, if parliament is not then in session, within 15 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session.
Is the hon. member satisfied with this?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Under the circumstances I would be prepared to withdraw my amendment.


Maurice Rinfret: Do I understand that the hon. member for Edmonton West wishes to withdraw the amendment?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances.


Maurice Rinfret: Has the hon. member the leave of the committee to withdraw this amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr, Lambert) withdrawn.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I am sure it has been a matter of delight to all of us that the Minister of Transport has paid just tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for the authorship of the Regulations Act. If the hon. gentleman would only pay equal tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for all his other great accomplishments in the government of Canada, then we on this side would have less to quarrel about with the hon. gentleman's party. It is a very important achievement of the Leader of the Opposition that has been spoken of tonight. It is one of the crusades of his life. But there have been quite a number of others, and those others, I am sure, will live equally in the memory of the hon. gentleman from Bonavista-Twil-lingate as has the one he mentioned tonight.
Unfortunately I do not have before me the Regulations Act, although I see that the Minister of Transport has it. If I recollect
Canadian Livestock Feed Board correctly, when Mr. St. Laurent adopted the suggestions of the then hon. member for Prince Albert it was thought there might be some weaknesses in the act. When the section was read by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development he said that the regulations should be tabled within 15 days after publication in the Canada Gazette. If I recollect correctly, there was some concern at the time the Regulations Act was passed whether all regulations of every character should be published in the Canada Gazette. If the Minister of Transport will assure me that those regulations which come under clause 19 are of the kind which must be published in the Canada Gazette, then of course the clause which the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development has read is totally applicable. If they are not of such a character, then of course the clause is meaningless. This is the total issue, Mr. Chairman. My question can be simply answered yes or no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it is quite as simple as that, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman is a lawyer and I am merely a poor layman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -unlearned in the law.
But it would appear to me that the hon. gentleman is as well able to construe a statute as I am. I would think the answer to this question is a simple yes; but he knows the rules about ministers, and especially unlearned ministers, giving legal opinions. I am sure we would be delighted to hear his legal opinion, now that he has recollected the situation in respect of the passage of this act. I thank the hon. member and the hon. member for Edmonton West for giving me the opportunity to remind them of one of the few achievements of the leader which all of them seem to have forgotten.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move that clause 19 be amended by adding the following words after the word "regulations" in line 1:
subject to annual review by the House of Commons or a committee of the House of Commons.
In support of the amendment I have just suggested to the minister and the committee I should like to say that while there are provisions in the statutes now which provide that all the regulations made to administer any statute must be placed before this house at

October 11, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board some time, there is no provision which requires that these regulations be considered by the house or in fact by a committee.
Bill No. C-218 setting up an eastern feed grain agency is a completely new departure in legislation. All through the progress of this legislation in the house and committee, apprehensions have been raised about what may be done with this act when passed. For example, I can remember more than one member rising in his place last Thursday and Friday and saying words to the effect that what is important is not so much what is in the act but how it is administered.
Apprehensions have been raised that the act when passed may defeat its purpose, if it is intended to be of assistance to the familysized farm, the bona fide farmer, or whatever name you wish to call them, because it would be of even greater assistance to the large commercial enterprises and the integrated livestock feeding operations in eastern Canada, in that this provision could of course intensify competition in the livestock markets for the family-type farm. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, it would displace to some extent-and this has been drawn to the attention of the house previously-the geographical position of the livestock feeding operations in Canada, to the detriment of the efficiency of all our grain and livestock producing establishments.
Therefore, because it is a new departure in legislation and because we do not have a set of regulations before us now that would give us an indication of the details of how this act will be administered, I think it would be useful to have this additional provision in the act to ensure that the House of Commons, or perhaps the committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development, could consider the regulations. It would be mandatory that they consider the regulations, at least for the first few years after we have seen how this act operates.
The amendment I have suggested simply requires that the minister bring in the regulations annually for study, I would presume near the beginning of each session, and that he move that they be referred to the committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development for study. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think my amendment has some merit, particularly for the first two or three years of the operation of his act. After the board has been set up and the regulations have been in operation and amended from time to time, after we have seen how the act is working

and have made sure that it is in fact functioning to achieve the end result that was intended, this amendment could of course be withdrawn in so far as its mandatory effect is concerned. Meanwhile I believe this is a useful kind of amendment that would in fact satisfy many members of the house who are wondering what is going to happen in respect of the operation of the act.
The minister himself, for example, said that he did not know what kind of regulations or administration were going to be set up to deal with the possibility of the larger feeders obtaining the major share of any subsidies for freight and storage that would be paid out of the operating fund of this board. Therefore I say to the minister in all seriousness that I think the house should have the right to review these regulations at least annually in the initial stages.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: I would not like the house to think there is a sinister plot behind these regulations, that everything is being done behind closed doors. If hon. members would like to refer to Hansard of last Friday, they will see on page 8499 reference to an appendix containing regulations governing the actual system of payments. This has been published in an order in council, in the Canada Gazette and in the appendix. Clause 22 provides for an annual report to parliament. In reviewing the annual report the house may decide to send it to a committee for examination. I really do not see what benefit could be derived from this amendment as presently worded.
There is another point which I should like to make. After the regulations are passed, they will be reviewed by parliament a year later. I really do not see the necessity for this amendment as long as we proceed normally. I have gained the impression, after hearing some hon. members, that they believe some plot is being hatched against someone. I would like to know against whom, because the purpose of this bill is to improve the conditions of the farmers in eastern Canada and in British Columbia. It is not directed against anyone. This has been the platform of all the political parties for a good many years.
I have the impression that some hon. members think we want to act behind closed doors. We must help the boards to administer their acts and not hamper them in a way which will make it more difficult for them to
October 11, 196G	COMMONS
function under an act of parliament. Parliament is the supreme authority, and every year it will review the report. There are a lot of tricky points here, and it is rather hard for the administrators to go beyond the powers established by an act of parliament.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I want to make it abundantly clear to the minister that I do not see anything sinister in this bill. I cannot think of anyone who would be plotting to do anything wrong under the authority granted in the bill. The minister has admitted quite properly, and I am sure I heard him say this on Thursday and Friday, that a very delicate balance has to be maintained between the subsidies that are paid through this board. If it were not for the subsidies on freight and storage, and the other function of distributing feed in eastern Canada, then there would be no purpose in the bill at all. The minister said, and I agree with him-in fact I suggested it to him before-that there is a very delicate balance between helping one region and avoiding to do damage to another one.
The minister asked whether the amendment would require that the House of Commons review and approve these regulations before they can become effective. The amendment does not say that, Mr. Chairman. All it says is that those regulations shall be subject to annual review. It is certain that such regulations as are passed by the governor in council would become effective on the same date following the passage of the order in council, as would be the case with any other order in council. All the amendment would do would be to make it mandatory that the government, at least while this board is being set up and going through its trial period, be required to refer this to the members of the House of Commons or a committee thereof to ensure that the regulations are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the act, and also to see that the board is functioning in the way in which we think it should. The minister is quite right when he suggests that almost every political party-he said in fact all political parties-has been in favour of setting up this kind of feed grain agency. That is right; but we are also anxious, as is the minister, to see that this balance is maintained between how far you should go without doing one region damage, and trying to help the other.
The minister also raised an objection to the amendment because of the statement in clause 22 that an annual report is to be made to parliament. That is true, but the clause
DEBATES	8541
Canadian Livestock Feed Board
does not require the regulations under which the feed grain agency is to operate to be reviewed by the House of Commons or by a committee of the house. This is the intent and purpose of the amendment I moved, Mr. Chairman. I therefore think the minister is being a little unfair when he suggests that the only reason for moving this kind of amendment is our suspicion of some sinister plot. As far as I am concerned this is simply not so. We have a great deal at stake in passing this kind of legislation to see whether it does what we want it to do, because under the legislation we are setting up an authority, and giving authority to a feed grain agency to make regulations. Serious damage could be done to livestock feeders and even to feed grain producers in certain parts of the country if a mistake were made.
I hope the minister will revert to the statement he made earlier today that he would be in favour of an amendment which would in fact subject these regulations to an annual review by members of this house, to ensure that what was being done was in line with what was intended. That is the purpose of my amendment. It does not interfere with the effective date of the order in council respecting these regulations any more than do other orders in council.
Clause 22, unless amended, does not require that an annual report be sent to a committee for a review of the regulations. Therefore Mr. Chairman, there is nothing superfluous about the amendment in so far as other clauses of the bill are concerned. As I said I hope the minister will revert to what he said earlier this evening, that he would accept an amendment requiring an annual review of the regulations, at least until the feed grain agency is a well established body.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Amendment (Mr. Olson) negatived: Yeas 59; nays, 80.


Maurice Rinfret: I declare the
amendment lost. Shall clause 19 carry?


Mr. Winkler:: No, Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that a number of members of the party across the floor came in late and voted.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A few minutes ago the hon. member for Carleton drew the attention of the committee to paragraph (d) of clause 19 which reads:
-designating any city in eastern Canada to be the city in which the headquarters of the board shall be situated.
8542	COMMONS
Canadian Livestock Feed Board
He mentioned that in his opinion it is more advisable to keep in the capital city of Canada the major boards that are established by the government. I wonder if the minister has any explanation for this unusual clause which appears in the bill, or if the Minister of Transport would give us an historical summary of how a clause like this originated? I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that in clause 6(h) the board has power to establish branches in Canada, or employ agents in Canada or elsewhere.
Will it not naturally follow that the headquarters of the board should be here in Ottawa and branches should be established elsewhere? The minister has in this bill left out British Columbia. That province does not qualify for the headquarters of the board, and I presume a branch might be established out in that province. If branches are to be established in the provinces, the minister may find himself in a position where the headquarters of the board would be established in one province in eastern Canada and a branch of the board in the city of Ottawa, the capital city of this country. This seems to me to be a rather strange method of dealing with this particular matter. I should like the minister to tell us if he has in mind the city of Charlottetown, for example, for the headquarters of the board?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but it is a little difficult for the Chair to hear the remarks being made by the hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The situation was just about normal on the other side of the house, but I am glad the Chairman has drawn public attention to the fact the Liberal party does not pay much attention to what goes on in this chamber.


An hon. Member:: A Liberal convention.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes; it may be the last time I speak to a Liberal convention.
I wonder if the minister would explain now if Charlottetown would qualify for the headquarters of the board, and if not why not? One could go down the list and ask about Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. Has "Joey" Smallwood heard about this? Perhaps the Minister of Transport could tell us?
I feel more free to speak on this particular matter than the hon. member for Carleton because, living as he does in Ottawa and representing a part of this great city, he

DEBATES	October 11, 1966
might be a little shy about urging that the headquarters should be established here. I do draw attention to the fact that this is something that should be explained. When you look at the beginning of clause 19 you find that the governor in council may make regulations to designate any city; so the matter comes back to the cabinet. Why has the cabinet not made up its mind upon this matter? The minister is asking us to pass this legislation; then subsequently the cabinet will decide in which city the headquarters of the board will be established. Then, the pressures come from the various provinces as to what should be done, except that British Columbia and the three prairie provinces are excluded.
I see no reason at all for this clause as it stands, and I will await the minister's explanation.


Maurice Sauvé: We have not mentioned any city, Mr. Chairman, because we want to consult the interested parties as to the possible location. The Canadian Wheat Board has its headquarters at Winnipeg, the centre of the trade, and the centre of the trade in feed grain is normally Montreal. It is quite possible that after consultation with interested parties Montreal could be the location of the headquarters of the agency. We are applying no different rule from the one that was applied to the Canadian Wheat Board when the headquarters were established in Winnipeg, not in Ottawa.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not sure the analogy of the Canadian Wheat Board follows in this particular case. I am prepared to move an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, as follows:
That in line 11, page 9, paragraph (d) of clause 19, the words "any city in eastern Canada" be struck out and that there be substituted therefor the word "Ottawa".
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I have already explained that no decision has yet been taken as to the headquarters of the agency, because we feel we have to consult the interested parties. I should like to know from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre whether he would be ready to propose an amendment to move the headquarters of the Wheat Board from Winnipeg to Ottawa on the basis of the principle he is establishing. My point simply was that we should normally establish this
October 11, 1966	COMMONS
headquarters, after consultation with the interested parties, in the centre of the trade involved. It is no fault of Ottawa that the centre of the feed grain trade is not Ottawa.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister has demonstrated a lack of interest and knowledge on the part of the Liberal party with regard to western Canada. He is now suggesting that the Canadian Wheat Board should be transferred from the city of Winnipeg. It is the type of suggestion which comes from the members of the Liberal party, and explains in part their lack of support out on the prairies.
I have already said that the analogy with the Wheat Board is not at all similar to this situation. The Wheat Board deals with the great producing area in western Canada, the prairie provinces, that provides so much for our external trade and our balance of payments, something which this country needs. Winnipeg is very close to the producers, and there is a long history of activity in that city. There were other organizations which dealt with the grain trade before the government moved in to assist.
We are not being told by the minister, Mr. Chairman, that some city or other in eastern Canada will be more closely associated than another with feed grain. If this is the case, why did the minister not set this out in the original bill? He has left it wide open, and that is why I raised objection. He has in the bill "any city in eastern Canada". Why did he not name the city? Surely the cabinet can make up its mind, without changing it and then making it up again-or have someone write out a resignation? That is what I was after. Why leave the bill in this unfinished condition, when it would be a simple matter to insert whatever city the cabinet has decided upon? Leaving it wide open and uncertain is just another demonstration of the incompetence of the present government.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I really regret that the hon. member was not here this afternoon or Friday when we received much good advice from opposition members to the effect that we should not set up this board without consulting the interested parties. It is precisely because we do want to consult the interested parties that we have drafted the clause in this way. Either we are doing the right thing in consulting people, or we are not. I do not think the hon. member would like us not to seek the advice of the people who would benefit from this legislation. We
DEBATES	8543
Canadian Livestock Feed Board could not do so before, because the bill had not been passed. When it is passed we have the authority vested in the governor in council to establish regulations as outlined in clause 19. This is the democratic process, and I am surprised that my hon. friend does not recognize this in the intentions of the government in proposing this kind of legislation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to deal with the minister's argument, but I would ask him to withdraw his remark that I was not here on Friday or this afternoon. I have been here and I would challenge the minister to equal my attendance in this chamber. I was not absent in some secret room when a vote was going on the other night, as were 15 members of the Liberal party.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. I listened very carefully to the minister's explanation, which I thought was quite logical and reasonable. I think that what he intends to do is thoroughly sound from a democratic point of view.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, having listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) ask the minister to inform the house immediately as to where in eastern Canada the board is to set up its head office, I believe the member for Winnipeg South Centre only wants to play politics, as is customary with him.
This does not mean that I support entirely the minister's statement concerning clause 19 of Bill No. C-218, which reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) prescribing, with respect to payments related to the cost of feed grain storage and with respect to payments related to the cost of feed grain transportation. the classes of persons to whom and the terms and conditions on which such payments may be made and the rate of such payments within each of such areas within eastern Canada and British Columbia as may be prescribed by the regulations:
(c) designating
(i)	any area in Ontario lying west of the meridian passing through the eastern boundary of the city of Port Arthur to be part of eastern Canada;
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, how many of the farmers in the Champlain electoral district will understand that designation of eastern Canada as any region lying west of the meridian passing through the eastern boundary of the city of Port Arthur? The
October 11, 196G

Canadian Livestock Feed Board Champlain district lies there, as does my own county. But where are the farmers, or even the lawyers or professionals, who will understand what constitutes eastern Canada? And we can include the Lotbiniere district, across from Champlain-


Auguste Choquette: Will the hon. member allow me a question?


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Auguste Choquette: Why would the hon.
member have us believe that farmers are ignorant? Farmers are intelligent. Why would he have us believe otherwise?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I will point out to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) that farmers are intelligent, that settlers are intelligent. But I tell the hon. member for Lotbiniere that lawyers are nitwits when they produce such bills as this one.


Auguste Choquette: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


David Réal Caouette: A question of privilege on top of that.


Auguste Choquette: I appreciate the hon.
member's eloquence; he is a quite talented fellow and I like him very much. Moreover, lawyers are not that innocent; they do their best to confuse the law in order to have clients.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I like nothing better than such a sincere admission by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. Lawyers like to complicate laws so as to confuse everybody, and thus have clients, because people understand nothing about that mess of acts, amendments, clauses, sub-amendments. The hon. member for Lotbiniere knows all about that, since he just confirmed what I said a moment ago.


Auguste Choquette: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. Frankly because I listened to the hon. member's speech and I do not take him too seriously, I think it proper to make a witty remark. I was not speaking seriously when I said that lawyers wanted to confuse the law; I just wanted to be witty, considering that the hon. member's speech was not serious, I thought it proper to be witty.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It might be as well for the committee to get back to discussing Clause 19.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I will gladly come back to clause 19. However, I would like to be allowed, through you, to tell the hon. member for Lotbiniere that if my remarks do not seem serious, I think that what he said a little earlier lacked seriousness also.
To continue consideration of clause 19 of Bill No. C-218, Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that a little earlier the minister referred to Hansard of three days ago to say that the opponents of the bill had amplified their objections to the said bill.
The minister told us that parliament is the supreme authority with regard to the passing of those regulations or that bill entitled: An act to provide assistance to livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia.
The minister told us that there is nothing behind the scenes; no one is trying to influence the government, no one is trying to influence the minister, no one is trying to oppose the bill or object to it.
Mr. Chairman, subparagraph (c) of clause 19 reads as follows:
(c)	designating
(i)	any area in Ontario lying west of the meridian passing through the eastern boundary of the city of Port Arthur to be part of eastern Canada;
(ii)	any grade of wheat grown in the designated area not to be a feed grain,
(iii)	any grain or grain product to be a feed grain, or
(iv)	any class of livestock to be livestock for the purposes of this Act;
And we now come to sub-clause (d), and I quote:
(d)	designating any city in Eastern Canada to be the city in which the headquarters of the Board shall be situated;
Mr. Chairman, according to that clause, the meridian	passing through	the eastern
boundary of the city of Port Arthur really means that the eastern part of Canada starts in one section of Port Arthur, going east, and that British Columbia is the westernmost part of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, in asking that Winnipeg be appointed the organization centre for the distribution and sale of these feed grains in Canada, in eastern Canada as in British Columbia, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre departs from the rules, for the
October 11, 1966	COMMONS
Board of Grain Commissioners has its headquarters in Winnipeg, and Winnipeg is not considered as an eastern Canadian city. In fact, Winnipeg is considered as a central Canadian city, where the wheat and grain needed in eastern and western Canada is produced.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just so that there may be no more confusion than the hon. member has already raised, may I point out that I never suggested Winnipeg should be the headquarters of this board, as the hon. member has just said.


David Réal Caouette: No. I said that Winnipeg is already the centre of the corn exchange in Canada. We do not want Winnipeg as a grain distributor in Canada; we want it to be somewhere else. We are against centralization and the hon. member is in favour of centralization.

Mr. Chairman, we do not want Winnipeg to keep everything, namely the production and distribution of feed grains; other places should be suggested, but the member for Winnipeg South Centre mentions no other town but Winnipeg to ensure the distribution or control of the grains which come to us from the Canadian mid-west.
Mr. Chairman, this bill must increasingly make it possible for the people in eastern Canada to take advantage of and to benefit from the production of grain in our country.
Now, we of the Ralliement Creditiste, have asked, on many occasions, that feed grains be stored in eastern Canada, in our province of Quebec, in Ontario, in order to assist the eastern farmers. This clause 19 will help as long as there are no middlemen to take away from the farmers in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, the profits they need. We do not object to this Bill No. C-218, as long as it meets and follows up efficiently the objects set forth, the admitted purposes contained in this legislation.
The farmers from the Quebec district, from the constituencies of Champlain and of Trois-Rivieres, from my district, from the
DEBATES	8545
Canadian Livestock Feed Board lower St. Lawrence region, from Bellechasse, including those from Ontario, will profit from this legislation. But if middlemen, for instance, should seek to prevent farmers from deriving such benefits, then, Mr. Chairman, we shall take a strong stand and we will take to task the minister who is responsible for this legislation. But until then, we are ready to support Bill No. C-218, provided our farmers profit thereby.
* (9:20 p.m.)


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay the deliberations of the committee and I hasten to apologize to my friends in the Liberal party for keeping them from other activities. However, in seconding the amendment-


An hon. Member:: When is your leadership convention?


Eric Alfred Winkler: We don't forget the past. A few of you who have not been here too long do not bother me. I wish to reply to the hon. member who has just taken his seat in relation to his remarks about the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and the question of playing politics. I wonder who is playing politics, when the terms of this bill are as vague as they are.
I think we should consider the national capital as the headquarters of the proposed body. I notice that the Minister of Agriculture has lately realized the importance of this argument in relation to the milk industry, and will do something about it next year. We do not consider Ottawa as part of any province, but as the national capital.
The hon. member for Villeneuve said the bill will benefit Ontario, Quebec and other parts of eastern Canada. That is quite true. My own constituency may benefit from it and therefore I might request that the headquarters of the body be located there. However I think the most central spot would be the national capital. I have seconded the amendment and I hope the minister will accept it.


George Robson Muir: Since the minister has drawn a comparison between the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board and of the proposed feed board, I would like to draw to his attention that the operations of the Wheat Board are entirely financed by the producers of grain in western Canada, and the operations of the feed board are going to be financed by the taxpayers of Canada at large.
October 11, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board


Mr. Sherman:: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the comments of the hon. member for Villeneuve with respect to centralization, and his saying that in view of the fact that the marketing centre for grain is located in Winnipeg the distribution centre should not be located there. I would like to know how far he is willing to pursue this thesis on centralization with respect to other industries-for example with respect to our publicly owned air line and its headquarters location in Winnipeg or Montreal. Where does he think centralization starts and ends? Winnipeg is the logical centre for the proposed board. I would be much interested in pursuing this question with the hon. member for Villeneuve, either inside or outside the chamber.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has asked what I mean by centralization and decentralization, and has mentioned Air Canada. I am strongly in favour of decentralization, whether it be to Montreal or Winnipeg, so that Canada can present a truly national figure, so that organizations are attached not to one section or sector of our economy but to the whole of Canada. I am not asking Winnipeg to come to Montreal or Noranda, just as I would not ask Montreal and Noranda to transfer to Winnipeg. I would like Winnipeg, Montreal and Noranda to live together as Canadians.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the exchanges that have taken place regarding the location of the headquarters of the feed grain agency. The Minister of Forestry and Rural Development has said we should permit consultation with the organization respecting the proper place for its headquarters, but he went on to say it should be located in eastern Canada. I would remind him that this bill is entitled, "An act to provide assistance to livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia," and I think the British Columbia aspect has been forgotten.
If the matter is to be settled by consultation, then the minister should delete his reference to eastern Canada. I am not going to suggest that the headquarters should be located in Vancouver, which would be a beautiful spot, or at Chilliwack in my constituency, a beautiful little city in a splendid location. I am not suggesting that; but I do point out the unfairness of the minister's saying there will be consultation, but the location must be in eastern Canada. I believe
the capital city would be the proper place for the headquarters.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I would have thought the merit of this amendment was so obvious that it would have the unanimous support of the committee. Hon. members will realize how unprejudiced I am when I say that I have escaped living in Ottawa by 40 rods.
I suggest that the dissipation of the operations of government into various other communities is an unsound proposition. If there is to be any dissipation, the government should have courage and put it forward in legislation. When the Canadian Wheat Board Act was passed the government of the day came to parliament and said that "the headquarters shall be in the city of Winnipeg in the province of Manitoba." That was all right, and the House of Commons made the decision in that case.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
What is the minister proposing? He is proposing the secrecy of the privy council chamber; he wants to get behind closed doors so that he can have all the logrolling. The Minister of Agriculture will say he can get some votes in Renfrew if it is taken to Renfrew. Then the Secretary of State for External Affairs will say, "Oh, yes; Windsor is the centre of the universe". The Minister of Transport will say "Well, if we can get it far enough east we can get it down to Bonavis-ta". Behind closed doors we will have all this logrolling going on from time to time.


Mr. Greene:: Will the hon. member tell me whether he is against locating the headquarters in Renfrew.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, if I had my choice, legitimately, I would put it in the community in which the hon. gentleman is interested, and that is the community of Carp.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What have you against Bell's Corners?


Richard Albert Bell: We are going to have this behind closed doors and have a lot of logrolling, with one minister vying with another to get an operation of government. We have seen the dissipation. We saw the National Film Board taken out of this community. We saw homes being destroyed in the city of Ottawa. Hon. gentlemen opposite know all about what has happened. Had it not been for the protests from this side of the

October 11. 1966

house there would have been almost total dissipation of the national capital.
We know it is perfectly obvious that the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development intends to put this in the city of Montreal. Why does he not have the courage to put it in this legislation? Come on; move an amendment to have it in the city of Montreal instead of Ottawa, and then put it forward to the house in a legitimate and proper way. Then we can have this house debate it, instead of all this logrolling. I know what goes on behind closed doors when these gentlemen get themselves in the circumstances they do so often, sitting day by day, worrying about their little chores. If hon. gentlemen opposite are not prepared to support this, then let them move an amendment so that the house can decide, as was done in the case of the Canadian Wheat Board, and not have it as something behind closed doors.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: The amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. But, I should like to accept the argument proposed by the minister. He suggested-and I do not disagree with him-that the headquarters of this board should be located in the centre of the grain trade in eastern Canada. I quite agree with that argument. There is a stock exchange in Montreal and there is a stock exchange in Toronto. I think the logical place then would be somewhere in between these two centres, and that would be right here in the city of Ottawa. Using the minister's own argument I would suggest that we adopt this amendment and have the headquarters of this agency located in the city of Ottawa.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I missed the first part of this travelling back and forth across the country, while I was having my supper. Apparently I missed part of the trip. So far as I am concerned the minister can place the headquarters wherever he wants; it does not make any difference to me or to the farmers so long as it is in a place where it will give the results these people expect. You can place it in Halifax or Vancouver. If it is going to work better in Vancouver, then place it there. If we keep this up, each member will want it in his own constituency, and for a good reason. All I am concerned with is that we have it some place
Canadian Livestock Feed Board where we can get hold of these birds whenever we need them, and can talk to them. I am willing to give them air conditioned apartments, but let them do the job; that is all I am concerned about and this is all the farmers are concerned about. Let us stop beating about the bush, and trust the minister to put it somewhere. I am willing to trust the minister to the extent that I believe he will leave it within the jurisdiction of Canada. If he goes out of the country, then we can have a special debate.
Mr. Chairman, there is another matter here which concerns the cost of feed grain storage and the payment related to the cost of feed grain transportation, as set out in paragraph (a). Not too long ago I asked a question of the minister in the house concerning discussions which have been going on at least in eastern Canada, among the millers, the storage agencies, the railroads and the trucking industry. Following a meeting which had taken place at Drummondville, and another on Tuesday or Wednesday of last week in Montreal in the Chamber of Commerce building with railroad representatives concerning the transportation of grain, I asked the minister whether any of his colleagues had any idea of transferring everything to the railroads. From the discussions which came out of these meetings, apparently one man foresaw for the coming year a need for 40,000 bushels. He ordered
30.000	bushels, and then used only 26,000. Yet he had to pay the transportation on the whole
30.000	bushels. One thing the millers are not going to handle is a deficit on the selling price for the following year. Who is going to get it in the neck?-the farmers. The miller is not going to assume deficits year after year. If they order more than they need, they are going to pay for it.
The railroads cannot go everywhere. The trucking industry cannot do what the railroads can. We have to have a combination of both. In the Montreal area the railroads refused the franchise because they said they could not do the job for the next several months. They said they cannot keep up with the work they have now. The trucking industry was angry; the millers were angry. Some of the farmers were happy, but they did not know the whole story. Had they known the whole story they might have sent some men here to teach us some common sense. In the payment of these subsidies or charges I hope the minister will keep a close tab on what he is paying, for the simple reason that you cannot let these things run themselves. Some
October 11, 1966-

Canadian Livestock Feed Board people will be making an awful lot of profit, but if you mention it to them they will say they are having a hard time.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
This is something that should be supervised by the minister. Why do things become so expensive to transport from Port Arthur to eastern Canada? The western farmers pay for the transportation of this grain to Port Arthur, so why is it so expensive to transport it from there to eastern Canada? I have often heard it suggested that, because of transportation costs, feed grain that sells at $2 per hundred pounds in Port Arthur sells for $6 in eastern Canada.
Perhaps the minister should initiate a study of the profits that are being made. I suggest that he keep alert in respect of these increasing costs and make an effort to determine whether some speculation is taking place. Perhaps he should see that some sanctions are taken against people who are making undue profits in this regard. Something should be done in a positive way by the Department of Transport, perhaps by reducing or stopping subsidies, to see that these excessively high transportation costs are eliminated.
The minister as well as the board should report to this house in respect of transportation costs. This is something that would be of interest to the agriculture committee, if that is the committee that will consider this subject. I did not inquire of the minister as to what committee would consider this whole situation, and there is some doubt because the minister responsible is the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. I hope he will keep in close touch with this situation.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, in my province people have a habit of saying that certain colours cause violent reactions in some species of creatures which God has put on this earth. The red badges worn by some members of this house tonight have a similar effect on certain members of the opposition, since we are now witnessing the sort of event which should take place on more worthy occasions.
We are in fact trying to decide on the location of the headquarters of this feed board. Those who, like myself, have listened to the debate with an open mind, which is necessary under the circumstances, will notice that the House of Commons will never find an acceptable solution with the spirit

pervading this house at the present time, since one member suggests Vancouver, another' Chilliwack, and others Rouyn, Montreal, Quebec, and Megantic. I think this proves that the bill we are now studying-


Raymond Langlois: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I never suggested Megantic, I said anywhere, any place which would suit the Canadian farmers.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to see that my colleague does not show this narrow-mindedness. I will say this about him, he is not narrow-minded. He was misunderstood. But I want to say this, Mr. Chairman, that if the decision is left to this house, we will never get anywhere, because each is thinking of his home town and his own-political interests, and as the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) said earlier: this is unavoidable.
I am not suggesting that the headquarters of this board should be located in Trois-Rivieres, although I can think of many reasons why it would be the ideal place. But I think the minister was right in spelling out in the bill that the decision regarding the best place for the establishment of the headquarters of this board should be left to its members who will not be influenced as much as we might be by electoral and partisan considerations and who will surely look after the interests of all farmers affected by this legislation. As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to Ottawa being chosen. However, many members will agree with me that, for all sorts of reasons, there is no doubt congestion within the civil service in Ottawa as evidenced by a great many incidents. But I would have no objection to establishing the board in Ottawa; it would be acceptable to me. Someone mentioned Vancouver a moment ago, but I do not think he was serious.
Mr. Chairman, I will make my closing remarks as brief as I can, appealing to the hon. members to remain calm even if our friends, the Liberals, are overwhelmed with partisan joy because their convention has never been as successful in past years; even though this unexpected fervour on the part of the Liberals seems to spur on and challenge our friends of the Conservative party who want to show the world that they can do just as well; even though our friends of the Social Credit party who have also just returned from a sort of retreat are convinced they should prove to the rest of the country that
October 11, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	8549
they are perhaps in a better position to assure the common weal.
Let us forget those things for the time being, since we are not in the mood to select the headquarters this evening. Let us endorse the minister's proposal as men of good will should prove to the rest of the country that and say: We shall let the members of this board, who will not be influenced by such considerations but who will concern themselves instead with the common good, select their headquarters themselves.


William Arnold Peters: I do not intend to make a bid for the establishment of the headquarters of this board in northern Ontario, but I should like to make reference to clause 19(c)(ii) which refers to the fact that any grade of wheat grown in a designated area is not to be designated as feed grain. I assume the designated area is eastern Canada and British Columbia, and I am wondering why certain types of wheat will not be designated as feed grain. In Ontario particularly a lot of wheat is grown for feed. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me when I suggest that a lot of the wheat grown in the Renfrew district and in northern Ontario is not grown for the purpose of making flour. Many farmers decide which crop they will plant on the basis of the greatest yield per acre, and as a result grow oats, barley, wheat and other feed grains.
Many grades of wheat grown in the designated areas I am sure will be of a grade not suitable for commercial purposes. I see no reason why this particular subparagraph should be included in the bill.


Maurice Sauvé: This particular principle complies with a principle included in a Wheat Board regulation.


William Arnold Peters: That fact does not impress me. In Ontario we have a wheat marketing board and it would be unrealistic to suggest that all the wheat marketed by that board is destined for flour mills. That is not the case. A certain percentage of the wheat grown in the area from which I come does not go to the mills, but is used for feed, and we produce both hard and soft wheat. Surely the minister would not consider this grain as grain falling within the category set out in this subparagraph.
Canadian Livestock Feed Board


Maurice Sauvé: I suggest the hon. member consult the definition of "designated area" in clause 2 appearing on page 1 of the bill, which states that it is the prairie provinces which are designated, rather than eastern Canada. Clause 2(l)(e) states:
"designated area" means that area comprised of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and those parts of the province of British Columbia known as the Peace River-


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, clause 19(c)(i) states:
-any area in Ontario lying west of the meridian passing through the eastern boundary of the city of Port Arthur to be part of eastern Canada,-
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I presume that to be the designation of a consumption area. There may be some clarification in this regard in that there is a distinction between areas designated as consumption and production areas. Obviously if production takes place in an area falling in the eastern designated area the board should be able to handle this product. If this is not done we will immediately receive many complaints. Perhaps there just needs to be some clarification in the clause with regard to designation, because as the clause now stands it indicates to me at least that the farmer in eastern Canada will not be able to designate any wheat production as a feed grain.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, the provisions of the bill, the terms of payment, and so on, apply to eastern Canada. In the definition of this bill eastern Canada starts at Port Arthur and covers those areas in any parts of Ontario that could be designated by order in council, and some parts of British Columbia. These are the areas to which the benefits of the bill are extended.
It is the Wheat Board that designates the grade of wheat grown in a specific area as not being a feed grain. Regulation 595 applies in this regard. You have to refer to clause 2 and the definition of such area. Clause 2 (1) (e) says:
"designated area" means that area comprised of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta-
And so on. It is the Wheat Board which decides what grains are feed grains, and those which are not. A similar regulation is found in other legislation of this type.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
8550	COMMONS
Canadian Livestock Feed Board
During the taking of the vote:


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. May I request that those hon. members who were not in the chamber when the vote was called step outside, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Amendment Mr. Churchill negatived: Yeas, 43; nays, 85.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 19 carry?


Harold Warren Danforth: No, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Harold Warren Danforth: This clause outlines regulations, but as yet there is no regulation anywhere in this bill that deals with grievances and the method of handling them. When the board is set up and these provisions are brought into being, the board will have absolute control to buy, sell, transport, store, set rates, set subsidies and designate movements of grain. It will also have the power to designate the storage and agents to buy, sell and handle all the business that is to be found in the movement of eastern feed grain.
Such intrusion into this great industry, in which millions of dollars are involved, cannot take place without working hardships on some segments of the industry. As a matter of fact, if we are to accomplish the very purpose we set out to accomplish in this bill it is very probable that grave financial losses could be incurred by the trade. I hold no particular brief for the trade, but I am justly concerned that anyone who is suffering financial hardship, whose business is impaired in any way, should have a place to which to bring his grievances, in order that he might receive the just and careful consideration to which he is entitled.
It had been my hope that when the amendment was brought in the regulations could be brought under annual review by this house or a standing committee, that this could be the forum to which people could make representation, before which witnesses could be called and the matter could be investigated in depth, and if a hardship was found to exist the necessary steps could be taken to correct the grievance.
This is one of the regulations I am most concerned about, namely that there be some forum which could consider a redress of
[The Chairman.]
DEBATES	October 11. 1968
grievances, and justice could be done promptly without a delay of many months. I would hope that the minister would not give me the stock answer that representations could be made in the regular way. There are three avenues of approach in this regard. There is the direct approach to the minister, the direct approach to the board that is to be constituted, or perhaps the approach is to the advisory committee that will be set up to advise the board. The various segments of this industry will be very interested in knowing what is the proper approach to take and the one that will take the least possible time. I would hope that the minister could in some detail spell out what he considers to be the proper avenue of approach, in order that such grievances may be redressed correctly, justly and quickly.


Maurice Sauvé: This is an administrative board, Mr. Chairman. Since it is an administrative board, it has the same powers and acts in the same way as other boards. In fact its conditions are similar to those under which the Wheat Board operates. A farmer can appeal against a decision of the Wheat Board, and he will be able to appeal against a decision of this board. If the board surpasses its authority people can, by prerogative writ, take their grievances to the courts.


Harold Warren Danforth: Am I to understand from the minister's answer that the only redress, the only appeal in respect of hardships that are being brought about if this legislation is passed is recourse by private individuals or corporations to the courts? There must be some approach to parliament or through parliamentary representatives in order to bring about a redress, if such is found to be necessary.


Maurice Sauvé: If the board surpasses the au-tority given it by this bill, this step could be taken; otherwise-and I discussed this matter last Friday-members of parliament can be made aware of the problems of their constituents. I do not see how this method differs from the normal methods contained in legislation with respect to similar boards.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Clause 19 agreed to.


Harold Warren Danforth: It is ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.
October 11, 1966



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the house will be asked to consider Item No. 82 on today's order paper, second reading of the medicare bill.
Mr. Speaker, before you announce the adjournment proceedings, I understand a wish has been expressed by some hon. members that we dispense with the usual adjournment
Business of the House proceedings tonight, and I understand there is agreement on that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to dispense with the adjournment debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, October 12, 196S